John, On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan, > > > you said: > >> >> Yes I have heard ZMM described as a counter-culture book which is >> unfortunate. >> >> > J: I kind of like the label. Especially in a culture as screwed up as > this.
[Dan] It must be the SOM. > > Me prev: > > >> If you can't >> > communicate with your fellows, you are an ostracized loner with no hope >> of >> > reproductive success. This is a problem. >> >> Dan: >> Perhaps that is a reason why Robert Pirsig wrote his books, to >> elucidate the assumption that the world is comprised of nothing but >> subjects and objects and to offer something better. I pretty much feel >> like an ostracized loser... er... I mean loner all the time anyway so >> that doesn't bother me as much as it might other people. >> >> > J: R. Pirsig gave off that feel too. Especially in Lila and it kinda gave > hope to losers everywhere. Dan: Well, like I said, it doesn't bother me as much as it might others. >[John] > A mixed blessing. [Dan] Or perhaps a mixed salad. > > >> Dan: >> I've always hesitated to think of myself as a smart person. I'm not. >> What I know compared to what I do not know might be likened to a grain >> of sand on a endless beach. So I always wondered why if I could get >> through not only ZMM but Lila too, then why do those who are so much >> more knowledgeable about the world fail? >> >> > J: This question is at the heart of my ponderings about SOM and the > Giant. Maybe people don't wanna think about alternatives to materialistic, > egotistical success. Maybe there's an unconscious desire behind the > repression of quality ideas which would liberate folks from the soul > repression which feeds the systems. Dan: Or maybe they just don't care? > > > Dan: > > I think some people are too smart for their own good. Since they >> already know so much, they become closed off to the possibility of >> learning anything outside the boundaries of that knowledge. > > > J: > > But often the best and smartest of scientists are full of a child-like > wonder. Dan: I said "some people." > > Dan: > >> From what I understand, gunpowder was invented in ancient China, which >> was not a culture under the sway of subject/object thinking. > > > J: Yes, but it's use and promulgation was by a culture which was. > Somewhat akin to the way scientific knowledge when it > falls into the grasp of politicians. Dan: Yes, those evil politicians are second only to the academics seeking to subvert the world with their knowledge. > > > D: > > >> Disease >> is a biological level value which again isn't under the sway of >> subject/object thinking, as is alcohol. Guns only came about because >> gunpowder was available. Otherwise we might still be shooting arrows >> at each other... not necessarily a bad thing. >> >> So I think your argument falls apart. >> >> > > J: If you look at those patterns in isolation, you're right. But this is > what I'm trying to impart - patterns do not instantiate in isolation. They > resonate and influence each other on multiple levels. Disease is a merely > biological pattern in and of itself but coupled with intellectually > influenced society which traverses the globe in machines of power, it's > effect is more than merely biological. Dan: You are mixing metaphors here but then again I suspect that is your problem all along. > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Dan comments: >> > >> >> You are here to do more than merely learn the MOQ because you've >> >> already learned it. Some of us lesser mortals here find that painful. >> >> I assumed that was a dig at me and perhaps David Buchanan but who >> >> knows. Anyway, if I misread your intention, I apologize. >> >> >> >> >> > J: I don't like causing pain. I've been intensely interested in this >> > discussion for how many years? 15 at least. My point about Pirsig's >> > writings is that they are easy to understand and well-written. I was >> > introduced to ZAMM in 1980 so that's been 34 years of thinking and >> > learning. I've still got a lot to learn, I agree, but I wish I could get >> > across the idea that I'm not an idiot without sounding arrogant. That's >> a >> > toughie. >> >> Dan: >> I've noticed most of the extremely intelligent people I know do not >> have to tell anyone that they're smart. >> >> > J: It's not really a matter of discussion. Smart is merely a judgement > along a continuum and has no meaning in the end. Smart people know that. > ;) But also "smart" as we usually us the term is a very narrow signifier > for a certain kind of verbal/logical ability and there are so many kinds of > smart in the world it's kind of dumb to attach too much significance to > just one kind. [Dan} "And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good--Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" > > > > Dan: (speaking of Ham) >> > > >> Again, he doesn't care about the MOQ. I challenge you to read any of >> his contributions here and tell me that he understands the least >> fundamental idea about it. >> >> > J: I cannot accept the idea that somebody who chooses to persist in > interaction and discussion as many years as Ham has, doesn't care. > > Maybe you just feel bad because you can't explain it better? :) Dan: Yeah, that's gotta be it. Ham is undoubtedly the resident expert on the MOQ. It is a wonder he didn't write the book before Robert Pirsig. I don't know what I'm even doing here besides wasting time. You should be addressing these questions to him as he would be better able to explain them than I could ever hope to do. > >> J: I have a hard time divorcing the idea of the individual completely > from >> the patterns. > > Dan: >> People are never divorced from the patterns. People are the patterns. >> What the MOQ is saying is that social patterns are not made up of >> groups of humans. Perhaps I could have been clearer by saying groups >> of individuals but the 's' at the end seemed to signify that. >> >> > J: A mere group of humans would be like a mob, or a hive of bees. The > social patterns that guide most human activity are much more complex than > that. I agree. Dan: A group of humans has nothing to do with social patterns. Nada. I'm not sure you even understand what you're agreeing with but I'm certain it has to do with my inability to discern higher intelligence. > > > > > >> Dan: >> The MOQ does not ignore the individual. We are the patterns. >> >> > > J: Unless the patterns are understood in the context of how they relate > and influence individuals, they're meaningless. > Man is the measure of all things. Dan: Well, yes, that would go without saying. But how does that... oh, what's the use. >[John] > I'm not even sure how this dispute arose. My problem from waiting too long > to respond. > But the good news is, I got the frames done. The look real nice, I > rabbeted out some 2x2's and then routered the edge by the painting and > painted them a semi-gloss black. Very simple but elegant. Craftmanship > isn't as satisfying as art, but it's a whole lot easier. Dan: I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that craftsmanship was art. I'm sure Ham will have a more MOQ-satisfactory answer than I could hope for. Anyway, it has been fun. Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
