Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Fair enough John, but that was mainly about the Tim / Spam situation - yes? My roll-eyes was specific to the Andre / Joe exchange - and incidentally was the most polite response I could be bothered to think of. The limits of whacky / playful / neurotic tolerance are simply pragmatic - you can only care so much, eventually someone has to wash some pots. Ian On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:06 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, You recently complained about the amount of garbage in your inbox when you subscribed to lilasquad. So I thought I'd cross-post my response over there, to you here and now. I won't make it a habit, but it seemed relevant to the very thing causing your eye-rolling below. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote: So Andre advises Joe to read ZMM Lila, and Joe tells me Pirsig's metaphysics is defined by words defined by logic. Roll-eyes Ian On 9 Jan 2014 19:57, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Ian and All, In DQ/SQ metaphysics words express reality through logic, logos-logic. DQ is indefinable, maintaining meaning through structure, metaphysics, words. How can a meaning of words be indefinable? One size does not fit all! Keep looking DQ/SQ until you feel satisfied! Individuality has meaning before 1 moves. DQ/SQ hosts structure, reality. Joe There is no doubt that Tim is bright. Nor is there any doubt that he has trouble being socially accepted - the signs are all around. And as people who are interested in the life and work of Robert M. Pirsig, we all have a certain amount of sympathy for intellectual social rejects. But no group can put up with an individual who is so out of whack that he refuses to abide by common communication norms. TCP/IP wouldn't work if acks were gibberish and likewise, human discourse requires a linguistic common ground in order to function. If the gibberish shows promise of evolving toward some system of understanding then we can be patient while it gets worked out, but if it's just getting more and more insane and hard to understand, then it's going in the wrong direction. And blurting out gibberish has a way of putting off newcomers to the list - it obviates growth which means it's violent towards any success. None of us are here solely to please ourselves. We all want better communication and understanding. Without that premise, that caring, we are doomed. It takes caring about others, to put your words and ideas into easily understood format. When that care is not taken, it shows the opposite of care - it shows disdain. Tim may hate his mother, hate his life, hate the world he lives in, but why should we all be the brunt of his anger? We didn't cause his problems. The fact that we can't solve them isn't because we don't care, it's just the way reality works. Work out YOUR OWN salvation in fear and trembling. (Phil. 2:12) Don't come bugging us about it. Maybe I'm wrong about all this. I'm willing to listen to reason. But spamming my inbox with verbal temper tantrums just pisses me off. John 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 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Hi Dan, We agree enough is enough. If I may focus on your final para: The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its own? And if so, are we presuming these beliefs correspond to some sort of external (objective) reality? So far as I know, the MOQ subsumes objective and subjective reality into a framework of value. Are these values to be found in Lila and ZMM? I think there is a lot on this. The culture of this group should comprise the values we find in Lila and ZMM sure. Playful (whether worldly / knowing or naive / neurotic) social interaction is simply part of being a group - the bit we agree needs to be within limits of tolerance, caring for each other as individuals, to use John's language. But the core culture is of course schizophernic / split-personality between ZMM and Lila. (And Paul gave us a two views perspective on this.) Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the Lila half, clearly seem intent on subsuming whatever qualities MoQ has (had) into some objective subject-object dialectic. (Mark / 118 said as much recently). For me these are welcome to their own agenda, I respect their rights to do so - in an academic context. What I can't accept is this agenda subsuming the whole art rhetroic of zen and the art of MD, which only flourishes without the overly objective shackles. Half dead is not alive. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
To which I should add two points Dan, (1) Which is precisely where you were in your recent exchange with Marsha, before you both flipped your playful tolerance bits. (2) And why I say as carefully (caringly) as I can to DMB (the champion / paragon of aiming to get MoQ on a serious academic footing) - Careful Dave, you're killing the MoQ in the process. Ian On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, We agree enough is enough. If I may focus on your final para: The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its own? And if so, are we presuming these beliefs correspond to some sort of external (objective) reality? So far as I know, the MOQ subsumes objective and subjective reality into a framework of value. Are these values to be found in Lila and ZMM? I think there is a lot on this. The culture of this group should comprise the values we find in Lila and ZMM sure. Playful (whether worldly / knowing or naive / neurotic) social interaction is simply part of being a group - the bit we agree needs to be within limits of tolerance, caring for each other as individuals, to use John's language. But the core culture is of course schizophernic / split-personality between ZMM and Lila. (And Paul gave us a two views perspective on this.) Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the Lila half, clearly seem intent on subsuming whatever qualities MoQ has (had) into some objective subject-object dialectic. (Mark / 118 said as much recently). For me these are welcome to their own agenda, I respect their rights to do so - in an academic context. What I can't accept is this agenda subsuming the whole art rhetroic of zen and the art of MD, which only flourishes without the overly objective shackles. Half dead is not alive. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
[Ian] The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its own? [Arlo] Cultures (in this sense) are the normative, shared expectations that provide cohesion and structure, while allowing growth (chaos is not fertile soil). Like all activity systems, this (and all) discussion forums (I'd say discourse community) are shaped by 'rules', 'media/tools', and 'division of labor/expertise', and of course into this people bring their own culture of use, histories and goals. I'd add that all although these activity systems can be bounded, like any other analysis (think the various ways of dividing the motorcycle in ZMM) its more descriptive than prescriptive. [Ian] But the core culture is of course schizophernic / split-personality between ZMM and Lila. (And Paul gave us a two views perspective on this.) [Arlo] This is entirely NOT what Paul gave us. His two views (epistemologic and ontologic) are not meant to endorse any schizophrenic/split personality between ZMM and LILA. Indeed, I read it as quite the opposite. Paul concludes his paper saying It is my view that, with the two contexts combined as phases within its overall development, the MOQ enacts a major expansion and evolution of the modern Western mythos. (Turner) If you think his two views supports a core culture being of course schizophrenic, I think you're way off target. [Ian] Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the Lila half, clearly seem intent on subsuming whatever qualities MoQ has (had) into some objective subject-object dialectic. [Arlo] Pairing philosophical academe (as an agenda) with objective subject-object dialectic is demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of not just Pirsig's expanded intellectual level, and of philosophy in general (and objective subject-object dialectic is a ridiculously meaningless lexical string). On the contrary, I think scholars like Ant, DMB, Dan, David Granger, etc. far from subsuming whatever qualities [Pirsig's] MoQ has, are creating an expansive, intellectual platform that enriches not just the Academy, but all interested in Pirsig's ideas. And, I'd add it is those who seem to suggest that Pirsig's ideas are nothing but destructive (aggressively destructive, even) to intellect and reason that are not only 'subsuming' but trapping his ideas (I'm picturing Dante's frozen lake of Cocytus here) in a perpetual anti-intellectual 'agenda'. Intellectual quality is not writing posts in broken sentences, randomly combining words, and raging against artificial boogeymen (such as the dreaded university). And while intellectual quality is not the end all of human endeavor, we should approach it the same way we approach painting, or fixing a motorcycle. I see this in everything the above scholars write. [Ian] What I can't accept is this agenda subsuming the whole art rhetroic of zen and the art of MD, which only flourishes without the overly objective shackles. [Arlo] Well, as I've said before, this forum is one of many expressive/creative zen outlets for our activity. No one, I suspect, gets their entire dose of art rhetoric from this forum alone. All activity systems have shared/negotiated structures (to call them objective shackles only reveals a serious misunderstanding of community), and these structures are as much enabling as they are necessarily constraining. Indeed, as Archer, Giddens, Bourdieu and others have argued, 'structure' (or habitus) enables BY constraining, these are inseparablely symbiotic. And while, of course, structure is always in a state of negotiation, it is not just foolish but a great blunder to think that it is nothing more than 'shackles'. 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Ian said to Dan: ...And why I say as carefully (caringly) as I can to DMB (the champion / paragon of aiming to get MoQ on a serious academic footing)- Careful Dave, you're killing the MoQ in the process. dmb says: I'm killing the MOQ? How so? I'd be totally amazed if you had an intelligible answer or a specific point. Ian wrote: But the core culture is of course schizophernic / split-personality between ZMM and Lila. (And Paul gave us a two views perspective on this.) dmb says: Split personality? Why do you think ZAMM and LILA are schizophrenic? I think it's much more likely that you don't understand Pirsig. I think LILA only clarifies and elaborates the thoughts in ZAMM. Ian said to Dan: Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the Lila half, clearly seem intent on subsuming whatever qualities MoQ has (had) into some objective subject-object dialectic. For me these are welcome to their own agenda, I respect their rights to do so - in an academic context. What I can't accept is this agenda subsuming the whole art rhetroic of zen and the art of MD, which only flourishes without the overly objective shackles. Half dead is not alive. dmb says: Like Arlo, I think your phrase objective subject-object dialectic is meaningless drivel. Apparently your agenda here is to express your hostility toward me personally and against intellect in general - and yet your actual reasons are extremely vague, if not totally absent. What's the deal, Ian? I had unsubscribed and so I haven't said anything at all in about two months. Seems like a strange moment to pick a fight. You have herein issued a series of fairly serious accusations; killing the MOQ, subsuming the MOQ, subsuming the whole art of MD, and clamping down with overly objective shackles. But there is no content, no specific basis, there are no ideas to support or refute, no issues to debate. Apparently this is just a hyperbolic rant in defense of your freedom to produce drivel, to write unintelligible phrases like objective subject-object dialectic. It's about Marsha's right to use contradictory phrases too, I suppose. As I see it, the greatest enemy of a discussion group like this one is the LACK of intellectual quality. Nobody ever said that we ought to adopt academic standards here, of course. Nobody ever suggested that we ought to behave like professional philosophers in this forum. And as far as I know, nobody thinks we are shooting for an objective standard or an object truth about anything. But unintelligibility is simply unacceptable in a discussion group, obviously. The misuse of terms, the use of contradictory phrases, for example, are so lacking in intellectual quality that discussion isn't really even possible. Intellectual quality is REQUIRED if we are going to exchange ideas. There is no way around that fact. Words are all we have here. Obviously. If that feels like a set of shackles to you, Ian, then get a different hobby. 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Ian, On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote: Fair enough John, but that was mainly about the Tim / Spam situation - yes? Yes. My roll-eyes was specific to the Andre / Joe exchange - and incidentally was the most polite response I could be bothered to think of. Right. The application of the problem I had to your roll-eyes was one I explicitly made. The limits of whacky / playful / neurotic tolerance are simply pragmatic - you can only care so much, eventually someone has to wash some pots. Well I feel I can sense when people are sincerely engaged in discourse to clarify understanding and when they just got them an egoistic axe to grind. But as Platt always said, I could be wrong. John 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Ian had said: The limits of whacky / playful / neurotic tolerance are simply pragmatic - you can only care so much, eventually someone has to wash some pots. Ron observes: Appearently you don't like your Pots TOo clean.. Eh? Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2014, at 4:28 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: The limits of whacky / playful / neurotic tolerance are simply pragmatic - you can only care so much, eventually someone has to wash some pots. 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Dan, I did think about my diatribe in terms of Joe also because like TIm, I can't understand him. But Joe at least keeps it short. whereas Tim spews more nonsense the more he's threatened which exhibits blatant hostility. I don't get that from Joe. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello John, Ian, Andre, and all, Each culture presumes its beliefs correspond to some sort of external reality, but a geography of religious beliefs shows that this external reality can be just about any damn thing. Even the *facts *that people observe to confirm the truth are dependent on the culture they live in. [Lila] I take it we all (presumably) joined this list to be understood. Disagreements are one thing but goofiness is quite another. I mean, how do you answer a post like Joe's? As long as I've been here, I've never seen a cogent post offered up by him. Not once! In that context, for Andre to suggest he go back and re-read the material is a normal request. He is attempting to bring Joe into the intellectual fold. Does that mean Joe and others of his ilk should be banned? Not for me to say, but if it was, maybe. As John suggests, if a person joins the group, makes a fool of themselves, but gradually progresses into coherency, that is acceptable. But how long do we have to read continued nonsense? Believe me, I am all for giving these folk the benefit of the doubt, but if we genuinely care about making this group better, there comes a time when enough is enough. J: According to the community building model I learned, excluding a member of the community is sometimes necessary but should always be anguished over, i.e., not taken lightly. And it's best if it's a consensus rather than an arbitrary decision. Which leads me to another thought: Horse isn't banning people out of a sense of pique or personal grievance but when he see something the group wants, or needs, he carries it out. I didn't grasp that for a long time. The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its own? J: I would say it's trying to become one. Whether or not it's there is not for me to say And if so, are we presuming these beliefs correspond to some sort of external (objective) reality? J: Speaking for myself, no. The only objective thing about my beliefs is that I know they are mine. But communicating them and sharing them in the quest for harmonious understanding is a good thing. So far as I know, the MOQ subsumes objective and subjective reality into a framework of value. Are these values to be found in Lila and ZMM? Now that is a good question. Pirsig emphasized the individual to an extent that it's hard to figure out how to work out a method deriving shared values from the MoQ. In some ways that's good. Everybody here thinks for them self. But it makes it hard to quench extreme individualistic heresy and so we have to rely on the good judgement of horse. That's not a long term solution. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, John 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
[MD] 42
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/14/222319627/new-computer-school-upends-french-education-model I heard about this place the other day on the radio and was very intrigued. Maybe y'all have discussed it before because it certainly aligns with Pirsig's grade-less and degree-less idea in education. I also was intrigued because I have a 12 year old boy who is deep into computer games and virtual reality and I'd like to get him into some kind of training program that would harness his interest. Schools at the k12 level just don't teach computing right. And kids, boys especially, seem to have a strong drive in that area from a young age. And where else is my kid going to find a career? My own skills in construction are useless because the vast numbers of manufacturing jobs lost to China were converted to construction jobs during the Bush bubble and now the field is so over-crowded its ridiculous. I'm reminded of my nephew Jason who grew up immersed in computer games as a kid. We all predicted it would be a bad thing - he wasn't getting any real world experience. Now he's got a great job for the nsa and travels the world. But Jason was home schooled and allowed to spend a lot of time learning programming. Most kids are forced by the school system to learn a bunch of stuff that's useless to them. And on that note, the school 42 in France is virulently opposed by the professional academics and teacher's unions. But it gives me hope. If it can happen in France, why not here in the land of the free? 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
Re: [MD] 42
Hi John, I've seen this before, its an interesting endeavor. You may have seen this before, but this RSA Animate short touches on many of the same ideas: http://www.thersa.org/events/rsaanimate/animate/rsa-animate-changing-paradigms One note of caution: opposed to professional academics and teacher's unions. I think there is a pendulum swinging from sage on the stage to guide on the side that has dismissed the role of the instructor too far. A professional academic is (or should be) someone who not only understands the body of knowledge but also is skilled in pedagogy and learning theories, someone who has the ability to access student performance and keep the student moving forward (via what Vygotsky called the Zone of Proximal Development). This professional academic is a keystone species in this learning ecology, and even School 42 makes use of professional academics (even if it wants to try to define this away). As for teacher's unions, while problems exist to be sure, these unions (and the concept of tenure) were formed to protect the integrity of the intellectual level from social-capital forces. If you abolish these, you better have a good suggestion for how this integrity can be pre served. Final note: grade-less and degree-less. This will only happen when/if economics (and its derivative social-status) are completely disentangled from education. So long as many (if not most) view education as 'career training', and see degrees as both economic and symbolic forms of social capital, this will never happen. For what its worth, I personally don't believe this is possible in a capitalist society, where these are used to mark the 'worth' of someone's economic value. Arlo -- Arlo Bensinger Instructional Designer College of Health and Human Development 103A Henderson Building Email: ajb...@psu.edu Phone: 863-6707 - Original Message - From: John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com To: moq discuss moq_disc...@moqtalk.org Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:58:22 PM Subject: [MD] 42 http://www.npr.org/2013/09/14/222319627/new-computer-school-upends-french-education-model I heard about this place the other day on the radio and was very intrigued. Maybe y'all have discussed it before because it certainly aligns with Pirsig's grade-less and degree-less idea in education. I also was intrigued because I have a 12 year old boy who is deep into computer games and virtual reality and I'd like to get him into some kind of training program that would harness his interest. Schools at the k12 level just don't teach computing right. And kids, boys especially, seem to have a strong drive in that area from a young age. And where else is my kid going to find a career? My own skills in construction are useless because the vast numbers of manufacturing jobs lost to China were converted to construction jobs during the Bush bubble and now the field is so over-crowded its ridiculous. I'm reminded of my nephew Jason who grew up immersed in computer games as a kid. We all predicted it would be a bad thing - he wasn't getting any real world experience. Now he's got a great job for the nsa and travels the world. But Jason was home schooled and allowed to spend a lot of time learning programming. Most kids are forced by the school system to learn a bunch of stuff that's useless to them. And on that note, the school 42 in France is virulently opposed by the professional academics and teacher's unions. But it gives me hope. If it can happen in France, why not here in the land of the free? 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 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
John, On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:41 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Dan, I did think about my diatribe in terms of Joe also because like TIm, I can't understand him. But Joe at least keeps it short. whereas Tim spews more nonsense the more he's threatened which exhibits blatant hostility. I don't get that from Joe. Dan: Granted. My point had more to do with: why waste everyone's time on meaningless crap. If a person is going to contribute, at least make the effort to do so intelligibly. If a person is some kind of genius far beyond us ordinary human beings, it becomes vitally important for them to write down to us. Make us understand. I don't mean to pick on Joe. I like him. But for all the years we've been sharing on this list, we've never had a discussion of any consequence. Perhaps that's partly my fault. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello John, Ian, Andre, and all, Each culture presumes its beliefs correspond to some sort of external reality, but a geography of religious beliefs shows that this external reality can be just about any damn thing. Even the *facts *that people observe to confirm the truth are dependent on the culture they live in. [Lila] I take it we all (presumably) joined this list to be understood. Disagreements are one thing but goofiness is quite another. I mean, how do you answer a post like Joe's? As long as I've been here, I've never seen a cogent post offered up by him. Not once! In that context, for Andre to suggest he go back and re-read the material is a normal request. He is attempting to bring Joe into the intellectual fold. Does that mean Joe and others of his ilk should be banned? Not for me to say, but if it was, maybe. As John suggests, if a person joins the group, makes a fool of themselves, but gradually progresses into coherency, that is acceptable. But how long do we have to read continued nonsense? Believe me, I am all for giving these folk the benefit of the doubt, but if we genuinely care about making this group better, there comes a time when enough is enough. J: According to the community building model I learned, excluding a member of the community is sometimes necessary but should always be anguished over, i.e., not taken lightly. And it's best if it's a consensus rather than an arbitrary decision. Dan: Looking back at the past couple of months, there was no substantive discourse taking place here. I think you might call that an unspoken consensus. John: Which leads me to another thought: Horse isn't banning people out of a sense of pique or personal grievance but when he see something the group wants, or needs, he carries it out. I didn't grasp that for a long time. Dan: I didn't want Marsha banned. I argued against it. Despite Ian's insinuations, it wasn't my fault that it happened. She has been playing around the edges for years and she finally got too close and fell off. This group is fortunate to have folk like David Buchanan, Arlo, and a number of others as members. I think we'd agree that their posts speak for themselves. When those voices fall silent, it is to the detriment of us all. The list is fragile. People come and go but there remains a core of contributors who are more than willing to help out new arrivals with the nuances of the MOQ. I realize I am not a teacher in any sense of the word. I lack the patience that someone such as yourself exhibits. Dan: The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its own? J: I would say it's trying to become one. Whether or not it's there is not for me to say Dan: I think it is. I also believe that's why when folk are here for years and yet still refrain from any intellectual discourse, then it is time for them to go. Cultures depend upon the members to uphold certain values. We are here to discuss the MOQ. Period. Horse allows us a great deal of leeway but when it comes down to it, we each are responsible to honor that commitment. Dan: And if so, are we presuming these beliefs correspond to some sort of external (objective) reality? J: Speaking for myself, no. The only objective thing about my beliefs is that I know they are mine. But communicating them and sharing them in the quest for harmonious understanding is a good thing. Dan: I like your answer and I agree. Except I might argue your beliefs are subjective rather than objective, but that's neither here nor there since value subsumes both. Dan: So far as I know, the MOQ subsumes objective and subjective reality into a framework of value. Are these values to be found in Lila and ZMM? John: Now that is a good question. Pirsig emphasized the individual to an extent that it's hard to figure out how to work out a method deriving shared values from the MoQ. In some ways that's good. Everybody here thinks for them self. But it makes it hard
