Andre, On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:58:54 +0100, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> said: > Tim to Andre: > > The difference is AIM. Aiming to discuss Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality > is a terrible > idea. Aiming to improve your intellectual level static patterns is a > great Idea. > > Andre: > My mistake Tim, apologies. The purpose of this MD is discussing MOQ. Aim > is as you say, to understand and improve.
Tim: I needed no apology; but if you need it from me, you certainly have it. "Aim", I think, is to quality wherever, or in whatever form, etc. and etc., it should arise. The reason that MoQ_Discuss has been successful is because RMP has come so close to quality. But, remember, he was up against the unknown - and I can't find the right adverb to assign here. He didn't derive the MoQ from a study of the book 'Lila'. So, his giving us 'Lila' is both a gift and a burden!! Mistake is inevitable. I don't see how we can *do* much of anything without "purpose", but I think we have to always keep it in the back of our mind that that "purpose" is somehow a starting in the middle. If you have picked a good place to start, it will go well. But that doesn't mean that the purpose has to remain rock solid. Commitment is important. But so is knowing when you have erred. > > Tim: > Andre, my point is this. What if you should come to fully understand > Quality? What if your hopes of progress in these lines comes to > fruition? What then? > > Andre: > I think it is impossible to 'fully understand Quality'. Refinement, > improvement, artistry is something that evolves continuously. Stamina, > gumption, commitment and caring (among others) necessary 'ingredients' in > this process. Tim: You are probably right about it being impossible to fully understand Quality! But this too seems to be a starting in the middle, if you will! Anyway, if Quality ever gets hemmed into a box from which it cannot break it will be a real shame, so it seems. But that too seems to be a starting in the middle! Yes, all the quality tools... > > Tim (in answer to what's 'the point' of Quality): > 'know': no? But, by faithe (and humility), I am quite confident. > > Andre: > So, by 'faithe (and humility)' what's the point of Quality? (You are > suggesting there is a 'point') > > Tim: 'point': I didn't mean to suggest that! I think that there is one not-point; rather, something is. Something is can seem real great at times, and it can also seem real crappy. My only one real problem with the MoQ was the insistence that Quality must be simple. I think Quality cannot sink so low. For better and worse, something is must be, and 'dealing with it' by whomever/whatever has to deal with it might even be unfair. I can only hope that this is not so! The question I have had is if it is worth dealing with. A lot of times I think maybe not, but that is only when I set my sights on the 'stars'. If I bring myself back down to 'earth', that is, the utter present, that utter present always seems worth it, or at least tolerable. But I am very fortunate, and I can imagine other scenarios - which I am quite sure are very real for other people - in which it would not even be tolerable! but, more to the point. I have mentioned many times now that all knowledge seems to be personal (M. Polanyi). Or, 'objective' knowledge requires a starting in the middle (and truth is measured relative to that start). ... long something ... other people to share it with and the ability to let go and play, these make the worries and troubles light. It is easy to deal with this darned fact that something (life?) must be if you can be that free. But, it seems to me, that freedom has to be earned. I can't justify leaving out any "neighbor". If I could, why shouldn't that "neighbor" be me? Thanks, Tim -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again 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
