Dan,
On 6/26/14, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan: > I tend to think of intellectual quality patterns as ideas while social > quality patterns are those which have taken root and grown into the > culture we inhabit. All our ideas evolve from social patterns, things > with which we are so familiar we cease to even realize they are there > at all. > Jc: I agree. I think this is the way the 4th level gives birth to the 3rd level - but it's more a mythic happening than any intellectual achievement. The role of intellect is as the critic, the analytic, that keeps bad ideas within bounds or looks for loopholes. I think the 4th level is best understood as dualistic in nature, because of the way these two are inseperable, the yin and the yang, Dan: > Most people I know work regular jobs while I do not. Being > self-employed I tend to stand apart from others in that I work my own > hours, get up when I wish, go to bed when I am tired, and spend most > of my free hours writing. > > When I go into the dealership where I do building maintenance I am on > friendly terms with all the employees there. When I ask how they are > doing, they invariably answer: oh... living the dream. > > What they mean by that is precisely the opposite. I know it and they > know it. They are trapped by their jobs, by the hours they are > required to work, and by watching the clock until they are finally > free to go. They often lament (in a joking yet sad sort of manner) > that time had stopped. > > The idea of having to live like that gives me the chills. Yet I fully > understand the need to provide for kith and kin. I am in the world > without being a part of the world, so to speak, and so I can see the > debilitating effects that social patterns force upon most people. > Jc: Well I know what you mean, Dan. The construction trade is an iffy business. It can pay good at times and be slow at others so you don't get into a routine but I'd work with people all the time who would moan and bitch about having to work hard for a living and I'd just shake my head and tell them. "Well that's not the way I look at it. I'm out in the weather and the fresh air, building things which is fun and getting exercize, which means I don't have to go to the gym. Besides, look at the classy people I meet on the job" and this positive attitude was infectious so the young kid or whoever would come to the job with a proper attitude and work their butts off and the boss would lay me off and not them. But I'm good with being unemployed, too. there's a lot of stuff to do and see in this world and now that my kids are getting married and moving off, there's not the same pressure to produce income like there used to be. >>JC: >> And yet, there is a way of thinking about problems in two different ways - >> you can rely upon social authority, or you can think for yourself about >> what seems right to you. But if that's the dividing line, then why does >> dmb constantly harp on me for not following his authority? It's a >> conundrum you see. > > Dan: > Well, of course I prefer to think for myself. Yet at the same time I > believe it is imperative to understand what it is that I am discussing > or writing about lest I be thought a fool. > > I'm afraid I don't follow most of your discussions with Dave Buchanan. > I presume it isn't his authority that he would like you to follow but > instead Robert Pirsig's. I can't say that I disagree with that notion > since that's why we're here... to discuss the MOQ as contained in > Lila. > Jc: Yup, I admit it's a complicated subject. I think I addressed it pretty well to Dave but we'll see. As iron sharpeneth iron, so do the arguing skills of a faithful enemy. I like arguing with RMP, through his work. It sharpens me, that's for sure. I can't find much to argue with, so I tend to jump hard on what I can. Pirsig's metaphysics is an interesting dichotomy, in my view. While taking little to no note of the metaphysical impact of community upon intellect and the individual, it has been promulgated through a highly communitarian means! The internet vs the academy. Fascinating. >> >> Jc: Yes, I see what you mean. That works better for the 4th, also. How >> can you call something that is theoretically unbounded, a level? > > Dan: > I suggest that finding one's purpose in life is life's greatest > challenge. That's where following the 'code of art' or Dynamic > morality is of paramount importance. What is it we are meant to do? If > money was no object, what would we be doing? And why aren't we doing > it now? These questions aren't rhetorical... they require a real > answer. > Jc: right now there's a faint whisper of cooler air against my toes and ankles and the sun has set and the air is soft and full of golden shades. The crickets have started the sprinklers are tapping and there is a beer in my fridge just behind me, in my camper parked on the property. Its a nice evening and a nice feeling and I don't see how money would improve matters much. Money would just make me miserable with the responsibility of it and saying no to greedy relatives. We've got water in a year of drought, here in the Great Republic of Rough and Ready, and that's better than money. >> JC: >> Where is >> the limit to intellectual patterning? > > Dan: > Things can always be better so there is no limit. > Jc: exactly. >> JC: >> You can always conceptualize your >> conceptualizations again and again. > > Dan: > I don't know where creativity comes from. I do know I can't think > something new into existence or to force it into being in any way. > Sure, art either feels right or it doesn't but not during the creative > phase... that comes later. > > I think you'll find that fine artists tend to approach their craft in > a different manner than a layperson might, or a beginner. They don't > try to see what they're about to create before hand. They are instead > led by a sort of ephemeral vision that shifts and changes as the > artwork takes form. > Jc: That sounds right and I think is something that bugs Lu. She is more an illustrator than an original artist. Imagining something new into being is very difficult for her to do. I can imagine better than her but she is crafty and clever and makes everything around her beautiful. >> Jc: I'm reading a book right now my eldest brought home from college, >> called Bird By Bird, by Anne Lamott who is saying something similar in the >> current chapter - Shitty First Drafts. Here's what I just read - "A >> friend >> of mine says that the first draft is the down draft--you just get it down. >> The second draft is the up draft-- you fix it up. And the third draft is >> the dental draft, where you check every tooth, to see if it's loose or >> cramped or decayed, or even, God help us, healthy." > > Dan: > I've heard of that book but never read it. Actually, it's on my Amazon > wish list but unfortunately so are 500 other books. If wishes were > horses... I do like the title of that chapter. :-) With me though, it > takes about a hundred drafts before I begin to think I have it right > and even then I have my doubts. Jc: I've never really tried. I write a lot, but I'm too scatterbrained to focus upon an actual book. I got problems, I'm sure. I mean, I've started a lot in that I've got five or six first drafts up to about a third of the chapters. lol too much stuff distracts me. I hope before I die.... >> Jc: Yes, that makes sense. My drive is also full of unfinished short >> stories. It'd be interesting to go back through them some day. > > Dan: > One of my collections of short stories evolved from writings I > originally shared here. Something to consider. :-) Jc: I know this place has greatly shaped my thinking and my writing will always reflect that. Right now, the book I'd want to write most would be on Royce and Pirsig - two pretty esoteric philosophers, but I think way ahead of their time and keenly insightful to the problems of their times. And Gardening. Philosophy deals with the problems of the past. Gardening deals with the problem of the future. > > Dan: > I often find myself mixing art, storytelling, and philosophy here. > Some folk don't like it but oh well. They often claim that my reading > comprehension is lacking. Instead, I think I just see things > differently than most folk. I don't thrive on debate so much as I > enjoy a good discussion. Jc: I like both. I haven't gotten much of what I'd call, any quality debate here, unfortunately. But it might be that my readings and interpretations of things are so different from others that there's no way to latch on. But then when I think about the history of this list, and WHY there's not much dissent from an orthodoxy and it all starts to make sense. because you like it, or any of that crap. >>> >>> Write because it is better than not writing. Period. >>> >>> > >>> >> >> Jc: Well you are certainly mirroring Lamott's advice. I believe you. >> I'm >> not very good at that but I think that has more to do with the structure >> of >> the rest of my life than a conscious choice on my part. But maybe not. >> Food for thought. > > Dan: > I take that as a compliment though I'm sure Ms. Lamott is far more > adept than I am. I will say that scheduling my time is of enormous > importance, especially time to write. I think you'll find any artist > has to do the same... there really is no choice. Either one makes the > time for their art or they don't. Jc: I'm not a very scheduled or disciplined person. why not? psycho therapy time, Too much to get into. But that's ok. I write when I can and it makes me happy and the habit is good for me while I work out my slef-sabotage, if that's even possible. The truth is, we're all stuck. Just in differing ways. >>> Dan: >>> Why is that? >>> >>> >> Jc: I don't know, Dan. I just am. I think about stuff, and connect it >> up >> with other stuff, all the time. Everything has connection and connations >> that are infinite in scope and it's not a point of being driven to the end >> of them all, it's a point of being driven to the good of them all. How >> many mirrors do I need? Enough to get me peace of mind. But I seem to do >> a lot of processing about the big picture, even when I should be focusing >> more upon the little. > > Dan: > That's interesting. I rarely consider the big picture... it is more > brick by brick, or bird by bird, if you will. All my mirrors are > either so dirty I cannot see my reflection or else they are broken > into a million pieces that only tell me how scattered I truly am. > > That is why I have to maintain such focus. While others can play at > watching television and going out to the bars and having good times, > I'm forced to delve into my work, my art, my writing. Otherwise, I'm > lost. Not that it matters one way or another, really... Jc: I don't watch tv or go to bars but I do have a good time and I waste time too. But I think you are doing good and it does matter. Putting good words out there always matters, Quality in thought and word always matter. >>> Dan: >>> I use whatever tools are on hand for the completion of whatever task >>> is before me. The scientific method seems perfectly suited for >>> motorcycle maintenance, in my opinion. My bike won't start. What's >>> wrong with the darned thing? Kicking it doesn't help. Learn as much as >>> you can about it. Read the instruction manual. Form a hypothesis. >>> Pounding it with a hammer doesn't help. Experiment with something >>> else. Analyze your results. Make a conclusion. Oh! It's out of gas! >>> Ah! Now it starts! >>> >>> >> Jc: Nowadays its ask.com and yahoo.answers. Has networked intelligence >> replaced direct experience? Another fascinating question. > > Dan: > Nothing will ever replace direct experience. For me, it's Google that > has the answers, but they are intellectual in nature, not Dynamic. Jc: It's true, but it's also true that millinials are very different from you and me. > >>JC: >> But for sure, in your example, the scienitific method is a lot less useful >> than experience. When you've had a motorcycle a long time and you drive >> it >> everyday, you remember if it's out of gas or on reserve. But testing each >> hypothesis in an orderly manner is better done in an intuitive way than a >> precisely predetermined manner. > > Dan: > But that is not what the scientific method is about... I know I made > light of it but it incorporates intuition as well as rational > knowledge. > Jc: There is a for for it, I think "scientific skepticism" which tests assumptions rigorously. I have a friend who is a good mechanic and he drives me crazy - he doubts everything and everyone. It's good, I suppose, but it drives his wife crazy too (altho in her case, he's wise to doubt her) >> >> Jc: It's as simple as, good instruction manuals help me solve my problem, >> bad ones don't. > > Dan: > But why is that? Isn't that merely a symptom and not the disease? Jc: It's the whole of the issue. Actually tho, the best manual I ever read was the Idiot's Guide - the original Idiots Guide - by John Muir - on how to keep your VW Alive. I had a bug and then a bus and I lived by that book. His advice went beyond how to fix your car. It taught you how to fix your relationship with your car. But it wasn't like any other manual I ever read. >>> Dan: >>> We limit our perspective by viewing the world in terms of subjects and >>> objects. I wouldn't say that is bad so much as it is a low quality >>> endeavor, especially if we know of something better and more >>> expansive. It's sort of like sending your kids to a crappy college >>> when the best ones don't cost any more. >>> >>> >> >> Jc: Hm.. This might work for you, I can't say. But for me there is a >> usefulness to a conscious personal framework. I won't say it's the only >> way to do it, but it sure works best for me. And I can't help but note >> that it seems to be absolutely necessary for philosophical dialogue, so >> it's the water in which we swim, at least in this forum. > > Dan: > So you are saying we are all stuck in subject and object thinking? Jc: "we" as participants in discourse, yes. "we" as private individuals in our personal lives, no. You can transcend subject and object intellectually in your head, but reification is a norm for discussion. >>> Dan: >>> I suspect you are talking about social patterns of quality vs >>> intellectual patterns... right? >>> >>> >> Jc: No, I was talking about a Sam Harris video I'd just watched negating >> free will. And I'm sure he'd negate fundamental value, also, since free >> will is intimately bound up with values. You can't have Quality if you've >> got no choice and you can't have choice unless there is a betterness to >> strive for. > > Dan: > But you are really talking about being subservient to social quality > patterns, at least so far as the MOQ goes. That is exactly what RMP is > saying in Lila... that social patterns tend to bind us while > intellectual patterns seek to free us. Sam Harris? Eh. Jc: I think it's important to realize that not all stuckness is social. there is intellectual stuckness as well and what higher level frees us then? DQ! Sam doesn't believe in DQ so he's stuck for good. >> Jc: Possible experience is different for each individual and yet there is >> something to the commonality we share - that is, the question of what is >> real, comes down to a socially constructed agreement. This is partly >> why I believe the 3rd and 4th are infinitely intertwined. > > Dan: > There is something to the commonality we share as long as we inhabit > the same culture. Jc: And yet we learn even more about ourselves when we study other cultures. If I'm saying "we" in it's most philosophically generalized form, I'm talking about a cross-cultural human we. We inhabit a space, a biosphere, and that has effects on our concepts also. Realizing this is an aspect of Deep Ecology's teaching. Humans are the voice of a place. We've come so far in the developments of our "virtual reality" that our kids now prefer it to the real thing. Scarey! >> Jc: We are not constrained by religious dogma, but neither are >> constrained >> from using religious symbology in creating metaphysics. Who was it that >> latched onto an old hymn? "You got to cross, that lonesome valley". > > Dan: > The MOQ equates Dynamic Quality and religious mysticism but that has > nothing to do with any religious symbolism. And I have no idea. > >> >> Dan: >> >> >>> Now, unless you happen to read ancient Greek, the bible you've read >>> was most likely the King James version written in the 1600s by a group >>> of 47 scholars who were all members of the Church of England. Not >>> exactly an unbiased opinion, that. >>> >>> >> Jc: There has been more than a little bit of scholarship on that book and >> its origins, I know. But I'm not really talking about some kind of >> fundamentalist dogma. I'm talking about the meaning of Spirit which is >> the >> individual's apprehension of what is good and what is not good. > > Dan: > Why not simply drop the 'Spirit' and talk about the meaning, or the > value, or the Quality of one's life. Jc: Its true that spirit has religious connotations, but I use that term in order to converse with religious people. Those are the ones that are stuck most, and I think the MoQ can be useful to them. Nobody agrees with me on this, I know. Everybody hates religion and the whole thing seems hopeless. I agree. But something about a pattern that goes on for centuries and holds most humans in its grasp, is a force to be reckoned with and very real, in effect. > > Dan: > Well, luckily for me I am a relative simpleton. Most people are > smarter than I am but then again I don't invest a lot of my time in > grooming ego. Again, if you read what I said, when I find myself in an > intellectual bind, I simply do something mindless. Jc: intelligence is a tricky thing. I think you have to be of a certain level of intelligence, to realize how un-intelligent you actually are (this because the more you know, the stupider you feel, seeing how much there is to know) so that makes you pretty smart in my book, Dan. I myself feel really dumb in some ways, and pretty smart in other ways and at times but its all a relative s cale and it's all shifting, all the time to the point where it's the smartest who are often the most stuck. Street smarts, as they say, is a good thing to have. >>> Dan: >>> Do you really think there is an actual future? >>> >> >> Jc: I have an intuitiion there is. We'll have to wait and see. >> >> Hey, here it comes! >> >> Oops, there it goes. >> >> That's ok, the future is like a city bus, >> if you miss this one, there'll be another along in a few moments. > > Dan: > The reason I ask is that most folk I know believe in tomorrow. They > make intricate plans and plot endless scenarios all predicated upon > the future that they absolutely know exists in actuality. > > Instead, why not invest in the reality of today? All our carefully > laid plans can vanish in an instant. None of us are immortal. But most > of us live like we are. Jc: the first thing to know about the future, is that nobody can know the future. We can guess, and sometimes guess good. all present action has an idea for a future - and a future is an ontological defining norm for "objects" (i.e. patterns which we expect to persist - what means persist? Future!) So it's always an aspect o present thought, except for a deep meditation upon immediate experience. That's possible. But it's not where we live and breathe and have our being. If you think about it, the future does really equate well to DQ because by what do we mean if something is good or not? We are asking if it comes out right in the end. the end, is the future. People can take it way too far, and live for just future happiness in retirement, like those friends you describe (and most of the country, I believe) or people who live in the now - hedonists or criminals. These two sides of the human psyche resonate on a see-saw, back and forth. Balance if found in the keeping of both, in their place - the will intantiates in a triadic cooperation with past experience (memories and concepts) expectation of some future and an indeterminate now. > >> >>>> Dan: >>>> The few scientists that believe we can perfect technology are not >>>> scientists in that sense of the word. I'm guessing laypeople are more >>>> apt to believe in that scenario than any reputable scientist. >>> >>> Jc: Oh my yes, you laid your finger on a the pulse of a major issue >>> right there. >>> The way scientific knowledge gets dumbed down for the use of >>> politicians or the masses is a big problem. >> >> Dan: >> >>> We write up or down to our audience. That scientific knowledge is >>> being dumbed down should tell you something about the masses it is >>> being written for. >>> >>> >> Jc: What? The masses are getting stupid? Absolutely. Now you see my >> fear for the future. > > Dan: > Luckily the masses are not what is important. > >> >> >>>> Dan: >>>> Platt? Is that you? >>>> >>> >>> Jc: Funny. Good ole Platt, may he R.I.P. >> >> Dan: >>> Wait a minute... did Platt pass away? >>> >>> >> Jc: Yup. His wife Judy wrote and told us over at LS. > > Dan: > I am sorry to hear that. I liked Platt. > Jc: He was a contrarian, to an extent but a good writer and thinker. >> >> >> >> >> >>> JC: >>> > but I'm saying of course, >>> > Randian self-interest magnified by technologically-multiplied effects >>> > = Chaotic devastation eventually. >>> >>> Dan: >>> I know it's easy to believe that we are all only interested in how big >>> a piece of the pie we can grab for ourselves but I think that is a >>> dangerous fantasy rooted more in a convenient fiction than in everyday >>> experience. >>> >>> >> Jc: It's the root operating system of our governmental laws and corporate >> rules. I think as a result of a lack of metaphysical value - SOM evolves >> into subjective values of coveting objects, eventually. Its also what >> drives fundamentalist extremism. When you squelch the reality of value, >> religious values become hardened and reactionary > > Dan: > None of that matters. When there is a genuine need, it will be met. > That's all that matters. > >> >>> > >>> > Dan: >>> > >>> >> Think: doing more with less. I'm not fatalistic at all. The Tragedy of >>> >> the Commons is a 19th century myth that should not be taken too >>> >> literally. Foretelling a future based on the past fails to take into >>> >> account new and unexpected circumstances... in other words, Dynamic >>> >> Quality. That does not mean that the future is Dynamic Quality, >>> >> however. >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Jc: No, it could be a complete mess. There's no guarantee that our >>> > long climb upward in material comfort and technological will keep >>> > going forever and there are many signs of system failure. Maybe some >>> > miraculous cure could come. Maybe Jesus in the clouds will appear. >>> > Who knows? >>> >>> Dan: >>> I'm pretty sure I saw Chuy driving past the dealership in a souped up >>> low riding mother of pearl '57 Chevy but it might have been his >>> brother Jim. Either way, I'm pretty sure we're on our own. >>> >>> I read reports from a hundred and fifty years ago or thereabouts how >>> New York City would be buried beneath a mile of horse manure in only a >>> few decades. Huh. Bummer, that. Imagine the smell. Especially during >>> summertime. Then the darnedest thing happened... some fool invented >>> the combustion engine. >>> >>> >> Jc: Which is merely spewing the carbon wastes into the skies, instead of >> the streets! But I can see you're an optimist Dan, A sometimes gloomy >> optimists whereas I'm a usually cheerful pessimist. >> It's the end of the world as we know it. >> And I feel fine. > > Dan: > I am neither optimistic or pessimistic. > >> >> Later Pard, > > Likewise, my friend, > > Dan Sorry it took so long to get back to this and finish it off and send it. things were pretty hectic and then I got a 2-week job building an outbuilding to move the water heater for the pastor who is gonna marry my daughter in 2 days. That's going to be weird, having a married daughter. Take care, John C 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
