John, Thank you for your helpful and open post. It has some good observations there about the limitations of electronic communication.
Anyway, just so everyone else is aware, the second part of John's Inspirationality essay was published earlier today together with it's perceptive commentary by Paul Turner at: http://robertpirsig.org/McConnell%20Part%202.htm Both the paper and its commentary are truly inspiring! Best wishes, Ant Dr Anthony McWatt site administrator www.robertpirsig.org ======================== John McConnell stated July 24th 2012: Mark, Anthony, and any others, I come to this topic to intervene and reconcile. It grieves me when what should be constructive dialogue among good people deteriorates into personal confrontation. It doesn't need to happen that way, and I think I can help. What I'm about to say will anticipate what you will read in my subsequent essays on "Quality and Inspirationality", but I don't think this can wait until then. Inspirationality is a way of thinking with the expanded rationality Pirsig envisioned in ZMM. I want to present to you one example. Electronic communication can be a great vehicle, but because of its inherent terseness, it can also interfere with communication. In Victorian terms, it tends to be "ungracious". This makes it easy to form "filters" about the writer. (Remember the "Cleveland Harbor syndrome"?) Once those filters are formed, they become highly resistant static patterns that are self-reinforcing. They amplify instances that affirm them and filter out anything that contradicts them. Electronic communication seems especially predisposed to the formation of these filters. This is a prime example of a general principle: Perception projects. Our "rational" inclination is to suppose that perception is just passive collection of information about an "objective" reality out there. But consider what happens when you meet someone for the first time. There's so much a priori stuff kicking around in your mind. There are also some preconceptions based on what you already know, or think you know, about the person. If you know what his job is or what his role is, you will already have expectations based on that role. We haven't even gotten to the person's appearance, the setting in which you meet, or any of the rest of a long list of cues that activate positive or negative associations and activate filters, almost like your biological immune system. By the time you shake hands, you've got a complex and formidable static "straw man". You will begin relating to this "avatar" you've built, and it will be very difficult to develop any kind of relationship with the actual person. But there is something you can do. It doesn't feel good to be in an adversarial relationship with someone. (Well, sometimes maybe it does. But I hope that's not the usual case. :-)) But given that the "person" you're relating to is really a highly artificial static pattern, you can fix that with a deliberate act of will: Change your perception of a person, and the person's behavior will change. This is an inspirational way of thinking. It's not "rational", but it works. This isn't speculative or conceptual; it's practical. I have done it repeatedly, and it works every time. I think the reason it works is because you have surrendered some of your static patterns and allowed Dynamic Quality to dissolve them and open a pathway for authentic relationship. You can never get rid of all your static filters and perceptions. But you can replace some of the negative ones with positive ones. Then further relationship with the other person will build and strengthen positive filters. The thing about this that doesn't make "rational" sense is that this works perfectly well even though the other person knows nothing about your decision to change your perception. From reading what another person has written, you can't know what was going on in his life, what preconceptions and filters he had, what personal history had contributed to what he said and how he expressed it at that moment. If you find yourself reacting negatively to what he has written, please try to take a step back, change your perception, and try to relate to the person behind the writing. If you can do that, then you are engaged in a beneficial relationship, and you can both work to realize the value in it. I'll give you a personal example, by way of confession. When I first submitted my essay for posting on the robertpirsig.org site, I felt like a snot-nosed kid trying to insinuate my way into a game with the "big boys". I "perceived" everyone in the Lila Squad as a professional scholar and philosopher, skilled at rhetoric, logical debate, intellectual discourse, and armed with an arsenal of "philosophology". I felt intimidated and defensive. Anthony shared my essay with Paul Turner, and Paul generously reviewed it and critiqued it in terms of consistency with MOQ. I genuinely appreciated Paul's help. But because of my elaborate array of filters, I perceived "attack" where there was only genuine assistance. I perceived an overpowering and disdainful professional philosopher where there was in reality just another IT tech like me. (But he really is scary smart!!) I now see what I was doing, and I have decided to change my perception of Paul Turner. Paul, if you read this, please know that I value your kindness, I value your knowledge, and I value your honesty. I want to relate to the real Paul Turner and not my prefabricated ghost of Paul Turner. I look forward to our further work and fellowship together. Kind regards to all, John L. McConnell . 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
