Can we still be surprised and feel awe when we discover a bird's nest in the shrubs or a frog in the polder?,we should be!,....many people loose this ability early in life.We can ask ourselves,... Did the emotional/intellectual adaptive filter close too early for them,and did the pattern dissolve itself to give way for other patterns to emerge?......,
Sometimes a bit strange that i will take a philosopher stance to stop thinking about these things, and go back to expiriencing again, as if everything is anew every day. Adrie 2017-08-22 9:00 GMT+02:00 Dan Glover <daneglo...@gmail.com>: > Hi guys, > > Great discussion! > > Hey. Just an aside. Maybe. But maybe not. I just got back from viewing > the eclipse. First time I ever've seen totality. Had to check what I > was drinking for if someone'd slipped LSD into it or maybe diced up > psilocybin mushrooms on that breakfast burrito I had earlier. Took off > work and drove 400 miles for a totality lasting 2 minutes 40 seconds > and I'd do it again tomorrow were there another. Mindblowing. > Completely mindblowing. > > See, intellectually I knew exactly what an eclipse is. I knew what to > expect. But to witness that mofo... that was an experience. People've > asked me oh did it get dark and did you see stars and did the crickets > start into chirping and yes to all but Jesus God there were people > driving past me at the same moment the moon was blocking out the sun > and their headlights were on and but they never even pulled over to > look. And they were right there. Right there. > > One of the people I was with said hey it's because we're in Missouri. > And he wasn't joking. More, though, leading up to the eclipse I kept > getting nasty messages on Facebook saying: "am I the only one not > going to the eclipse?" And people are agreeing. Oh yeah. Big waste of > time, that. I'm not going. As if it is somehow okay to be jaded. No. > Expected. How one of the wonders of the world is right there above our > heads and we're too busy or too adultish or too know-it-all to take > the time and watch and those of us who do revel in the experience are > dullishly off-kilter, worthy of putdowns. > > I'm not much into politics. The wheel turns. Now is the time for > stupid people to rule. That'll pass as it always does. If you accept > the basic tenet of the MOQ, that quality and morality are identical, > then you might also see how what's better is driving evolution on all > four levels. And what's better doesn't necessarily mean intellect > always rules. I read this article about how birds what live along > roadways are evolving shorter wingspans. That doesn't presuppose as > some would have it an intelligent being overseeing such happenings nor > is it a matter of chance. Rather, birds with long wingspans are unable > to fly away quickly enough and are killed by cars thus unable to > propagate. Short wings are better. > > There are so many ah ha moments in life which we gloss over. > Especially should things not fit with our preconceived notion of the > world and our place in it. If the MOQ teaches us anything, it should > be to wake up. To be there. To give our attention to what is right in > front of us instead of forever planning for tomorrow. > > Anyway... > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:26 PM, WES STEWART <wes...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > People, who ask a question why things are the way they are? Struggle > with it then spend a lot of time trying to find what is wrong and try to > find a solution are not the large population. > > Our thinking and upper managers (those in organizations including > government) is clouded because we/they assert to authority, muddled by self > importance, self interest, greed, jealousies, anxiety, hate and revenge. > > The scientific way that Pirsig described. It's also Shewharts and > Demings way to build quality into a society, culture or system. First you > have to see that something is wrong, and then come up with a hypothesis on > why it is wrong. Then you plan how to fix it, carry out the fix, and study > it after to see what happens, then you take action either way on whether it > worked or not. They called it Plan, Do, Study and Act PDSA. > > > > Our basic educational systems, have not taught critical thinking, > normally it is memorize this, he is an approved smart guy , and we have > approved him. > > > > We are biological creatures and trained well by those who run the > system, we are trained not to think. Nature creates quality and morality > into a biological being. If I suffer an injury my blood clots at the source > of the injury white blood cells standby to attack any bacteria. > > That's quality, and it would be immoral if someone was to bleed out or > bacteria invade his body to destroy him. Bacteria are a lower form of life > it > > would not be moral if a lower form of life could kill a higher form so > easily. > > > > Intellectuals have managed to change society. African Americans were > given the right to vote, by an intellectual struggle. There is a long list > of other victories. > > > > A few years back It became known that the American congress had passed > over 1500 policies and the majority of these had benfited only those > wealthy congressman. How do you fix that? People who are leading a society > that are run not by their intellect, but by biology. (Self interest, self > importance and greed.) > > They have and will never seek knowledge of equality, fairness, because > you need a scientific mind for that, drift off in to that state of absent > mindedness, gather your thoughts and observations, then struggle with it; > the mind has to be in a pure innocent state, it may not be possible for the > majority of politicians. If you can do this you will find something closer > to the truth. > > > > Maybe a few of them may question and find an answer. What does it mean > about me and my congressional colleagues ? It means we are motivated at a > simple biological level > > therefore I share something with pond scum. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Chu <andrew....@gmail.com> > > To: moq discuss <moq_disc...@moqtalk.org> > > Sent: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:07:11 -0600 (MDT) > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > How do we nurture more intellects? > > > > From: WES STEWART > > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:21 PM > > To: moq discuss > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > We do not blame our biological patterns but we see them for what they > are, we contemplate then reflect if they are harmful to ourselves or > others, then we attempt some change. Do something that breaks up your > static patterns by using your intellect, by contemplating and reflecting to > come up with some good ideas. If you unknowingly ate some bad meat, you > would almost certainly throw up, this is quality in your biological system, > it has value. It would be immoral for humanity that just because we ate bad > meat we should die. There was some sort of evolution in our past, a dynamic > quality that allow us to eat bad meat, not process it but get rid of it > quickly. > > If your biological static patterns rule rather than your intellect > intervening at times, society has constructed prisons for that. > > If society has hidden rules that abuse a group of individuals our > intellect should act on this because it has knowledge of fairness and > equality. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Chu <andrew....@gmail.com> > > To: moq discuss <moq_disc...@moqtalk.org> > > Sent: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:07:52 -0600 (MDT) > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > So the separation of our selves into biological and intellectual I think > is another sign that there is a missing link somewhere. > > > > The beauty of the MOQ is its unifying simplicity. It gives a framework > by which we can better understand the world across all mediums be they > scientific, spiritual or artistic. But it doesn’t give us an equally > simplified framework as to how to apply it in our daily lives. > > > > We can understand MOQ deeply and yet still struggle to apply it in our > daily lives, wrestling with the biological, the intellectual and other > states of mind that each of us have to varying degrees. > > > > The fact that even Pirsig/Phaedrus’ character succumbs to his biological > state more often than not is some proof to this element of human nature. > > > > In a nutshell, I think blaming the biological part of ourselves is a bit > of a cop-out. As MOQ states, everything comes back to and is sourced from > quality. To then apply this to ourselves but then give exceptions for this > or that state of mind when we step out of high quality states dissipates > the MOQ’s powerful framework. > > > > What is needed is not only a framework for understanding relationships > of all things, but also a framework for the specific application of that to > human beings. Personally, I think what makes humans unique from all other > subjects beyond our awareness of our own various states, is our ability to > direct and control our actions. Our ability to manifest intent into > physical reality and thus influence quality. We want to create a race car, > we can channel our intent towards that. We want to create an atomic bomb, > we can do that, too. We want to land on the moon? Etc etc. > > > > I think breaking down the driving force behind these actions into states > is similar to seeing the reality as a classical/romantic duality. It > misses the forest through the trees. Instead we should focus on the > driving force itself particularly as it relates to human beings. And that, > to me, is intent. > > > > From: WES STEWART > > Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 9:21 PM > > To: moq discuss > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > We are biological beings along with having that ability to go into that > intellectual state, the innocent seeking state. Feynman talked about that > state of seeking struggling, often. You are trying to find an answer, not > trying to manipulate the answer to what you want it to be. Trying to find > the truth of your observations is this it or what is it the same state of > mind Pirsig spent most of his life in, this detached state waiting for > enlightenment, extremely logical and rational. > > > > However the biological part of all of us is irrational, not logical, > easily manipulated. Persig talks about his biological side, a drunkard > whoring all the time. It needs self importance, is self interested , > pleasure seeking, meeting with Robert Redford and his thoughts after we're > biological ego driven. Our jealosies, greed, anger, hate, arrogance and > revenge. They are emotional states that are from our biological selves, > they manipulate and are easily manipulated. > > > > It was remember Pearl Harbor , Dresden , and all the evil the axis had > inflicted on the world. It was an Irrational and illogical decision to seek > revenge on innocent civilians, Feynman's biological side was duped. Later > when his contemplative and reflective side, sought after the truth of what > he participated in he had his nervous breakdown. Is it an act of value, to > see how much energy is released when you split the atoms in a small bit of > matter. Is it possible that it could be used as a deterrent to war? If you > have developed a strong deterrent to war , is that not ethical. But to hand > it over to biologically driven politicians and what they did with it was > immoral and a human disaster. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Chu <andrew....@gmail.com> > > To: moq discuss <moq_disc...@moqtalk.org> > > Sent: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 17:55:13 -0600 (MDT) > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Good points! I agree. But question, Richard Feynman strikes me as > someone who often did exhibit dynamic quality (bongo player, creator, > traveler, introspective thinker). But in this case, if he experienced > dynamic quality while creating the bomb, should he have quit despite that > on moral grounds knowing that those who had the decision making power to > use it very well were not reflective and Pirsig-like? Is this a dilemma > that puts morality and quality at odds? > > > > To what extent should Richard Feynman contemplate the usage of his > quality work and creations? > > > > From: WES STEWART > > Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 5:11 PM > > To: moq discuss > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > Just one thing there is a difference between, information and knowledge. > A person may have memorized all that they need to know, and receive a > degree. Yet they have never gone into that state of absent mindedness and > sought to discover things on their own like Persig frequently did. There is > no such thing as a boastful intellect. There is only a boastful biological > person. > > > > Richard Feynman was a physicist on the Manhatten project, After they > dropped the bomb, in contemplation and reflection he had a nervous > breakdown because he was part of the death and destruction. The people in > charge of dropping the bomb, were non-contemplators and reflective people. > There were no Robert Persigs, in that group. > > > > A person who has a few university degree's means that they have > memorized the information required to obtain a degree. That's it. That does > not make them an intellectual. > > > > Using your intellect requires an objective scientific approach, gather > thoughts and information struggle with it for days looking for associations > for what it's purpose is. Maybe struggle for > > weeks, then you may get an epiphany like Pirsig. When you have a strong > feeling of your ideas relevance that's the conclusion of your intellect. It > is original, and becomes part of you. People with university degrees > voicing their opinions from what they memorized in school, is not being > intellectual, nothing original will be discovered, it is static ,there will > not be a dynamic quality decision that comes out of it. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Chu <andrew....@gmail.com> > > To: moq discuss <moq_disc...@moqtalk.org> > > Sent: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:06 -0600 (MDT) > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Agree humans can be both taught to love and taught to hate. Even more > reason that it is such a shame the concept of quality is not more accepted. > > > > Without quality, we presume an interaction is negative because the > object of our interaction has something inherently wrong or unsavory, like > the example of the boastful intellect. With quality, we can step back and > understand and reflect that it is our unique relationship with this object > that creates a low feeling of quality. And this we are less prone to > generalize and extrapolate from single interactions or experiences. > > > > But then how do we reconcile this an understanding of quality with > equality and morals? > > > > We can have greater clarity as to the nature of our relationships with > things but then how do we channel this? > > > > The question of morality and quality brings to mind the Manhattan > project. Undoubtedly the men and women of that group were invested in > their work, many of the greatest and most creative scientific minds of that > generation. They channeled their quality relationship with science and the > laws of nature to create the greatest weapon of human history. How are we > to judge the morality of this act even if we presume the creation of it was > a result of high quality work? > > > > For me this is a gap in pirsigs work and what I have personally though a > lot about. The separation of static and dynamic or the hierarchies of > quality do not satisfactorily strike at the heart of this conundrum. > Interested in everyone's thoughts. > > > > From: WES STEWART > > Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:50 PM > > To: moq discuss > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Thanks for the reply Andrew; > > > > Returning back to your first post Andrew, the US versus THEM mentality. > It was never with Pirsig US, (Robert Redford the celebrity actor and Robert > Pirsig the celebrity author) and the THEM people like Lila. > > > > None of us are born with any knowledge of equality and respect. On the > other hand humans are naturally biological beings full of self importance, > self interest, reacting emotionally with jealousy and greed. Someone may > give us information on equality and respect, we may even parrot it back > when it suits or purpose, however still we have no knowledge of it. > > > > Now take a scientific approach to understanding equality andrespect, > look at it from an objective unbiased point of view. Gather your thoughts > and observations then struggle with it defining what it is or is not, place > yourself on the giving and receiving end of it, struggle with it some more, > introduce some contradictions. Leave it sit for a day or two then go back > analyze it to a high degree like Pirsig. Some very strong lights come on, > it has made us a bit more humble, yet we experienced small epiphanies like > Pirsig. > > > > Now that's an intellectual discovery, the same way a musician discovers > a new song, or a researcher discovers a new drug. It's personal and > original. A month later you may be around someone who tells you how > marvellous he really is, and underhandedly making suggestions that he is so > much smarter than you. It subjects us to a low quality event meeting > someone like that, boasting from his biological self we can see that his > intellect has not moved. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Chu <andrew....@gmail.com> > > To: moq discuss <moq_disc...@moqtalk.org> > > Sent: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 23:55:13 -0600 (MDT) > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Hey Wes, good to meet you. > > > > So it’s interesting, I actually thought Lila was inconclusive in its > ending. I know the core of the book is meant to explore quality and its > implications with respect to morality. And in that his effort to do what > was best for Lila, Pirsig seemed to offer a conclusive end at first glance. > > > > However, personally I think, while it was a necessary next step > following ZAMM, Pirsig’s conflation of morality and quality is what made > Lila a weaker piece. > > > > The core question to me relates to that of human intent. Did he do what > he did with a creative intent or a consumptive intent? That is the > critical question in my mind. > > > > Recall that in ZAMM, Pirsig deploys an untrustworthy narrator to an > expert degree (he has said that Phaedrus is actually the hero of the story > and the narrator is in fact the ghost). Perhaps, unbeknownst to us, Lila > is a similar work, where the entire treatise is a giant rationalization for > Pirsig’s effort to capture Lila for his own. > > > > The fact that he made an effort to challenge Rigel and save her in his > own mind is moral by any common standard, but morality, like quality > itself, is in the eye of the beholder, and as we all are human, we know > that what is in the mind and in the eye is not always reflective of what is > in the heart. > > > > I would prefer to put aside the concept of morality for the moment and > consider the most basic delineation of any human action. Is it either done > with creative intent or consumptive intent, i.e. are you seeking to invest > yourself into something to create something greater than the sum of the > parts or are you looking to extract something from the world for your own > benefit or pleasure? The same exact action, take the challenging of Rigel > for instance, can take on wildly different implications given a differing > intent of the subject. It’s very difficult to observe at the moment of the > action, but I think human experience and history shows us that the > cumulative consequences of seemingly similar actions taken with divergent > intents ultimately show great disparity, i.e. actions cumulatively taken > with extreme consumptive intent, over time, generally resemble what most > would refer to as morally evil, whereas actions cumulative taken with > creative intent, generally resemble what most cultures would refer to as > morally good. > > > > I wonder then, if Lila saw something that we the reader were not privy > to. Perhaps, she saw that despite all of Phaedrus’ noble rationalization, > he still ultimately wanted what every other John wanted in her past. And > thus she chose Rigel, because at least there was no pretense about what he > was or why he did what he did. > > > > > > From: WES STEWART > > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 5:41 PM > > To: moq discuss > > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > I am new here too, found out about the site a few days ago. I use to be > on Demings quality management Linked-in discussion group. > > > > Thanks for the post! Pursig had stated our ability to reason; > contemplative and reflective thought is at the top of the MOQ. This is > what can bring change to a culture or society. He also stated morality and > quality are the same thing; this is similar to William Edwards Deming. > The owner of an organization must have quality inside his character, in > order to be capable of providing a quality product or service. > > > > In Lila towards the end; when Lila has her epiphany clutching the rubber > doll, Pursig takes on what he feels is his moral responsibility to look > after Lila for the rest of her life. Even when Rigel shows up offering to > take her away, Pursig challenges him, knowing it is not in Lilas best > interest. His life without Lila > > would be much easier is what his biological self would urge; however his > morality and quality of character have been built through his intellect. > > > > Pursig had empathy with Lila knowing what she was probably going to face. > > Pursig was always in an inner struggle trying to make sense or find > purpose in the world. He knew who he was and was trying to make the world > his students lived in a better quality atmosphere in which to learn, he > abandoned grading at Bozeman. Deming spoke openly as a University professor > , that no one ever fails his class , everyone gets a passing grade. > > > > Quality in a human being is all about character. I agree with you, > bigger houses, more diplomas, expensive cars, boats and other toys have > nothing to do with a quality human being. It was in Pursig when he decided > to do what's best for Lila, look after her for the rest of her life. He > strongly interceded against Rigel taking her but was over ruled by Lila. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Chu <andrew....@gmail.com> > > To: moq discuss <moq_discuss@lists.moqtalk.org> > > Sent: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 21:24:07 -0600 (MDT) > > Subject: [MD] The need for quality > > > > Hello all, > > > > My name is Andrew and I came across this site after re-visiting Zen > recently. Zen was, without a doubt, the book that has made the most > formative impact on my own personal philosophies and values. > > > > So I’m not sure who else is still active, but figured it was worth > reaching out. > > > > It seems to me that the world today could benefit greatly from a broader > understanding of Quality. > > > > The fundamental framework that qualities are intrinsic in things, > peoples, cultures is driving more and more swaths of humanity apart. Your > quality is determined by where you live, what car you drive, what language > you speak, the color of your hair, the religion you practice, the party you > voted for. These are all driven by the simple humanistic tendency to make > sense of the world by creating symbolic representations of disparate pieces > of data and observations. However, without an understanding of the nature > of quality, these simple models have in many ways *become* the world. The > representations have become the reality. > > > > And that’s a problem. > > > > The simple acknowledgement that quality exists within the relationship > between things, encompassing both the subjective and the objective nature > of our individual experiences, could give people the freedom to feel > comfort in their own perspective on the world while also understanding that > that relationship is unique to them and might not be shared equally by > others. It could give us the opportunity to start breaking down some of > the increasingly prevalent Us vs Them dichotomies we see in the world. > > > > Anyhow, I hope this finds everyone well. I look forward to engaging in > dialogues about all things Quality. > > > > Sincerely, > > Andrew > > > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > -- > 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 > -- parser 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
