Hi Dan, Thanks for the carefully considered email. It makes things much clearer.
I'll add some thoughts below.. > Thank you for writing... it is always good to hear from you! Please > know that I meant no disrespect in the discussion group... allow me to > explain a bit... > > For the last few years I've been working part time, six hours a day, > and so I've been able to indulge in the discussion group as well as > spend the time on my writing that I feel it deserves. A couple weeks > ago I saw the need to take another part time job working 4 hours a > day, so now my writing time has been drastically reduced. Instead of > six hours a night I now find time for two. I haven't been a big > contributor to the discussion group for some time, mainly just > corresponding with you and with Matt Kundert for some months before > that. > > I have nothing against any of the other contributors other than they > often seem stuck in the mud, so to speak. Marsha says something and > dmb jumps her case. You can set your watch by it. Ron is just a retard > (excuse my political incorrectness)... Mark writes whole books for > posts that say absolutely nothing about the MOQ. I'm not a gambler but > I would bet a hundred dollars to one that he has never read Lila even > once. What bothers me about that is someone just coming to the group > would tend to believe that is the caliber of dialogue here, and > frankly I am ashamed to be part of it. Joe is a great old guy but he > is so far out there it would take the star-ship Enterprise to find > him. Luckily he doesn't post much. Yeah. The key thing is the newbie entering MD and thinking 'this is it' - I agree… The best way really to judge how good the MD is, is how the newbie would be treated. Not in a 'polite' way necessarily but in a way which points them in the right direction. At the moment they can be pointed in very wrong directions… This is the main reason why I'd argued for Mark and Marsha's removal a while back… I'm sure this is why dmb argues with Marsha constantly. But how do we handle the Marks and Marsha's and Joe's? Kick them off? What about every other Joe who doesn't understand the MOQ? We can't create a rule that everyone who misunderstands gets kicked off can we? Ideally, it's better if they change their own views for the better. But they won't do that unless they actually see that it is better to do so. One thing they both have in common is that neither of them are much interested in seeing anything when you talk to them. They don't want to see things from your shoes. They don't want to consider another idea. They've got their ideas and that's it. Certainly they're not interested when you're having a discussion with them. As soon as you point out a perceived flaw in Marsha's thinking she'll just get defensive and introspection is the last thing on her mind. With Mark, as per my last discussion with him, he'll try and spin his thoughts as long as he can and then just stop responding when he can spin no longer. You're probably right that he hasn't read Lila. He seems very ZMM focused. I mean it's just a certain arrogance and unwillingness to put themselves in others shoes that's the impediment here. But what are we to do- create a no arrogance and no unwillingness to consider alternatives rule? Anyway, perhaps it's good to go deeper than that. Let's question our key value. Is it really that important for newbies to get only the best? This is how things are. Is shielding them from crazy ideas really all that much of a good thing? It's ideal yes, but at the same time - dealing with crazy ideas helps to keep things in perspective. And with people like dmb constantly showing an alternative to whatever Marsha says I think that helps to keep things in perspective as well. Ultimately though, I just hope that good contributors like you, and others like Paul Turner in the past, and dmb now, don't get too discouraged and leave only those crazy ideas behind.. The MOQ creates a whole new world of philosophical discussion and it feels like we've only barely touched the surface. It might be depressing to read Marsha and Mark and Joe's posts but it's even more depressing when someone like you leaves MD.. > Now, back to our discussion. I thought it was going along pretty good > under the Creative Freedom in Jazz thread until we were disrupted by > others, which seems to happen quite a lot. You mentioned you thought > the discussion was winding down so it seemed as good as time as any to > take our leave. The other brief discussion of ours seemed to have > little to do with anything really... don't you agree? Yes. > I do believe spending time discussing the MOQ is a fine thing but at > the same time when the discussion devolves then I think it is best to > take a step back. I've learned a great many things over the years in > this discussion group. I've always claimed I wasn't into philosophy > but now I see I was perhaps wrong. I am not into philosphology. I > don't spend time reading other philosophers. I spend time writing it. > I think that goes against me in the discussion group as I am not as > well-read as many other contributors like dmb, Marsha, Ant, and even > you. I'm very much the same in this regard. Generally, as an activity I don't enjoy reading at all. Usually I'll get very annoyed or bored or both with what I'm reading and just stop reading.. Pirsigs two books are actually two of the very few I've felt compelled to keep reading and challenge myself in trying to understand what they were saying.. SOM has the worlds academia caught in a metaphysical trap. The MOQ beautifully points its finger at the source of that trap. So many books are caught in that trap and spend chapters defining terms and what things are which the MOQ can say in one or two lines… I think I've just always felt the pragmatic urge to just say a society is a society, stop getting so stuck! The MOQ allows us to do just that… awesome. Anyway, I don't think it really does or should go against you too much that you don't read much philosophy or do much philosophology. I've seen Andre as well say that he hasn't read enough to talk on the discussion board.. But I think that all people have good ideas. I certainly think that you and Andre have a better outlook on the world than some people whom I'm sure have read small libraries worth of books. Some folks like to get by on MD by name dropping and confusing or scaring the person they're talking to.. With a sound understanding of the MOQ and an understanding of what's good however, Wikipedia should be able to help out with any new ideas someone tries to introduce. I mean just look at what happened when dmb attempted linking of our discussion to negative and positive liberty - we both saw straight through that… He had no response really and that was the end of it. > To me, philosophy isn't hard. It is the philosphology that's hard, the > study of philosophy. I don't get it. I've tried to read James and > Hegel and Kant and I find it is impossibly dry. I wonder when they > were writing those words of theirs if they ever thought anyone would > ever read them. I guess that's why I am drawn to Robert Pirsig's > works... he makes it interesting even though he says the stories are > secondary to his philosophy. To me, the stories are primary and the > philosophy is a by-product. I must say I prefer the philosophy but what I do like is how the philosophy has been linked to the narrative in both books. But it's surprising to me that you don't think philosophy is hard? I find it hard. I find it hard to articulate myself and create thoughts so that they match my experience accurately. It is certainly fun to do and it probably gets more fun the better the thoughts get, but still the process of working though it I find is painful. Particularly when dealing with someone else's ideas and trying to communicate how I see things in a way they will understand. That's the whole thing of MD, seeing things through someone else's eyes, and I can't say it's easy.. It's especially not easy when they refuse to do the same, or they are caught up on their ego, or something else, unknown, is blocking them from taking on board what you say... > Anyway, if something of interest arises in the discussion group I will > respond. I no longer read every post (I can't get through many of > them... they are really bad) but I do skim over them each day. But for > now I am on hiatus. My work in progress has taken an unexpected turn > and I see it needs quite a lot of work before it is presentable... > rather surprising in that when I started it I was in the middle of > writing a series of novels. An idea came over me so I had to put that > down to start this new project, thinking it would only be a short > story at most. That was back in June... > > Please feel free to write me privately any time you like. And thanks > again for writing. No worries Dan and all the best with the writing, Oh and apologies for my ranting but I think this is very important so I guess I have lots to say about it… Thanks anyway, -David. 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
