Hello everyone On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:16 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb said to Dan: > ...Basically, my complaint is about irrelevance, which is not a word I'd > apply to any part of Pirsig's books. > > Dan replied: > I know many of my stories could be construed as irrelevant. I tend to treat > the reader as if they have a mind of their own. For instance, what does a > misspelled sign have to do with the MOQ? If I have to tell you, then why > write a story in the first place? In ZMM the narrator says that metaphysics > isn't any good unless it contributes to making everyday life better, right? > > > dmb says: > > Well, I only vaguely recall something about a misspelled sign so I don't know > what it has to do with the MOQ or what you're saying here. In any case, my > complaints were not aimed at you and I do not think your contributions are > trivial, gossipy, or frustrating. I'm not complaining about stories because > of their narrative form so much as the personal little anecdotes. There is > something about a lot of that stuff that's uncomfortably needy, as if the aim > is not to make a point but to get personal approval, as if the aim is not to > be understood but to be loved. It's a bit obscene.
Dan: I understand. Something of substance stands on its own. I have to say I was a bit shocked that in one of his posts John referred to American Idol in regards to my writings, as if I'm trying to one-up everyone. No, no, no. Good writing isn't about gaining personal approval. It's about bettering oneself. It's about prolonged and careful engagement, learning the language, building a vocabulary, reading, reading, reading and then reading some more. And then letting all that go and just writing. Once I get a first draft down I can always go back and dress it up for the party. The only person I'm trying to better is myself. > > > Dan also said: > Anyway... this quote comes to mind:"She was strangely unaware that she could > look and see freshly for herself..." (ZMM) This is a key quote when it comes > to understanding and separating (what I would term) a Dynamically constructed > piece of writing from the static-bound. Imitation kills creativity. I don't > want to hear what all the other countless philosophers think. I want to hear > what you as the writer thinks. > > > dmb says: > > Yea, I like that writing lesson too. The single brick and all that. But I > don't think fresh seeing and listening to other philosophers are mutually > exclusive. Quite the opposite, actually. The dull student was forced to see > freshly by focusing on something so small and simple that she could get > familiar with it in a relatively short time. Began to write only after > pondering it for a while. It also forced her to see freshly because their > just wasn't any essays about the Opera House brick that she could imitate. As > I mentioned before, the history of science shows a pattern of this. Progress > occurs only after a long period of consensus and consolidation, which is to > say fresh seeing comes directly out of highly developed familiarity. That > familiarity is what allows one to see the anomaly, to see the little thread > that dangles at the edge at makes things untidy. Sometimes, when the > researcher finds that little thing that doesn't fit, she gives it a pull and > the whole system comes unraveled. Philosophy or any other endeavor works like > that too. Sure, a guy can get stuck listening to other philosophers and never > get past the imitation phase but I think it would be a stretch to say we > ought to ignore what philosophers say for the sake of freshness. Lack of > knowledge and familiarity can kill creativity pretty fast, you know? Dan: Oh yes I agree. During the years I've belonged to the discussion group I've devoured countless book recommendations. I find my interpretations of these works differ from the interpretations of others, probably on account of our backgrounds. I would never suggest we ignore high quality work. My point had more to do with contributors who insist on copy and pasting large sections of philosophy without adding their own interpretations, as if I haven't enough sense to google the work for myself and read it. Please. > > > Dan said: > > As an example, John's fixation with Royce... it may well be a Dynamic insight > that James and Royce were best buddies. I did not know that. But don't shove > Royce quotes down my throat day after day. Talk about dry and irrelevant. > Make it interesting. Build a case. Don't put me to sleep. > > > dmb says: > > I just learned that James and Jung spent a couple evenings together talking > about religious experience. In a letter, Jung tells his correspondent that he > was very impressed with James. James also spent time with Freud that same > weekend. Dan: That is interesting. I've read William James, Jung, and Freud, but I've always had more of an affinity for William James brother, Henry. I find his work juxtapositions Americans and their European influences in very unique ways. It's not easy reading Henry James' work in light of today's 'immediate gratification' type of story telling but worth the effort. dmb: Anyway, I agree. If John thinks there is a case to be made for Royce here then he's gonna have to do the work. I've got more than enough homework to do as it is. If I thought a study of Royce would illuminate pragmatism or the MOQ I might be more tempted to spend time on it. But we don't have to guess or even make simple inferences. James and Pirsig both tell us flat out that they don't go for that Absolutism stuff. Making a successful case in the face of that seems very unlikely and so the pursuit of Royce would be a wild goose chase. Dan: Could well be. And again, that's incumbent on John to build a case as to why such a pursuit isn't a wild goose chase. I don't have homework per se but I do have priorities that simply don't allow me to delve into something as obscure as Royce simply because someone copies and pastes quote after quote. > > > Dan said: > > ...But Chris doesn't want to be told what to do. And if left to his own > devices, he'd learn by just doing. But the narrator-teacher's not having any > of that. To him, it's a bad sign that Chris won't do what he's told. He's > shirking work. Not good in the mountains. Not good in the classroom. There's > a clear correlation between not judging Chris on his actions and not grading > students in the classroom. > > > dmb says: > > Well, I don't think it's about disobedience so much as it's about ego > climbing. The whole thing is a nightmare to Chris because he's trying to race > up the mountain, then he gets tired, then he gets hurt because he's tired. > Then he's humiliated because dad has to carry his load, then he feels > disappointed by not making all the way to the top because, for him, it's all > about triumph. I think that's what withholding the grades was about too. It > says, don't worry about getting to the top. Just focus on the climbing > itself, step by step, and then you'll get to the top, then you'll get that > "A". It doesn't hurt that the capital letter "A" looks like a mountain. Dan: I think we're on the same page. What I was saying about the narrator seeing Chris shirking work is from his perspective only. Chris isn't shirking work from his own perspective. He's not interested in being told what to do. So what the narrator sees as disobedience is to Chris a form of rebellion. I should think it common among the back-row students too. They want to experience the world on their own terms, not through the guidance of others. Perhaps ego has a lot to do with it too, as you say. Teenagers are notorious egoists as they ready themselves to step into the adult world on their own. > > Dan said: > ...I guess what bothers me most is posters who insist on changing the MOQ to > suit their own ideas. And it's clear reading their words that they've spent > little to no time actually reading RMP's work. I don't know where to begin so > though I might once in a while burst forth I generally ignore those posts. > > > dmb says: > > I agree and I think one would have to change the MOQ to to make it suit > theism. This is the most common form of distortion. I also agree where you > say, "we all know what intellect means. Yet it goes on and on and on. Christ. > I could just scream". Dan: The introduction of theism into the discussion group is distasteful to me as well. There's this holier-than-thou attitude that we're all familiar with, and worse, the incessant need to convert others to their way of thinking. Bo's fervor over his SOL is indicative of most Western theism... his constant recruitment of new contributors, his bombastic I've-been-up-the-mountain-and-so-I-know-best attitude... what more do you need to create a religion? Long ago I found it best never to discuss religion, politics, or Bo's SOL. > > Dan said: > > Something new and original is so rare! Like you say, a person has to be > steeped in prolonged and careful engagement. But there's more to it than > that. Otherwise they'd just be regurgitating the same old stuff. The passage > on Poincaré mentions the 'subliminal self' as preintellectual awareness. The > Dynamic Quality of LILA. You could say it takes all that stale junk we learn > and turns it into golden moments. And we never know when or where they'll > turn up. Most likely it'll be unlooked for and a surprise. > > dmb says: > > Yes, the passage on Poincare is the perfect illustration of what I mean. The > pre-intellectual awareness that gave rise to a new hypothesis doesn't happen > in a vacuum of knowledge. The problem or question can't even be detected > without prolonged and careful engagement, let alone a brilliant new solution > to that problem. This holds in Pirsig's case too. He spent years and years > searching for his Quality and then he gave up. When he started teaching in > Bozeman, he had given up and he says it's very important to understand that > he had given up. This is the stuckness that comes before the flash of > insight. His mind was like a super-saturated solution just waiting for a > catalyst to crystalize it. > > Are you teaching Quality, she asked? And here we are 50 years later talking > about what came out of that one little question. > Dan: It's a hero's journey, the call to adventure. And what an adventure... Thank you, Dan PS If anyone is interested in American story telling at its finest they ought to pick up a copy of Day Out Of Days by Sam Shepard, actor and playwright. Really, really good writing. I've always enjoyed his understated acting style and his stories are marvelous. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
