John, could you do us a favour and give a little history of events here ?
I understand your "essay" is in 3 parts, One or more part(s) being
written quite some time ago ?
Was your interaction with Paul and the Lila Squad back at that time,
or more recently ?
Apart from the essay, what was your interaction with the Lila Squad ?
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, T-REXX Techs, Inc.
> Mark, Anthony, and any others,
> I come to this topic to intervene and reconcile. It grieves me
> when what should be constructive dialogue among good people deteriorates
> into personal confrontation. It doesn't need to happen that way, and I
> think I can help.
> What I'm about to say will anticipate what you will read in my
> subsequent essays on "Quality and Inspirationality", but I don't think this
> can wait until then. Inspirationality is a way of thinking with the
> expanded rationality Pirsig envisioned in ZMM. I want to present to you one
> Electronic communication can be a great vehicle, but because of
> its inherent terseness, it can also interfere with communication. In
> Victorian terms, it tends to be "ungracious". This makes it easy to form
> "filters" about the writer. (Remember the "Cleveland Harbor syndrome"?)
> Once those filters are formed, they become highly resistant static patterns
> that are self-reinforcing. They amplify instances that affirm them and
> filter out anything that contradicts them. Electronic communication seems
> especially predisposed to the formation of these filters. This is a prime
> example of a general principle: Perception projects.
> Our "rational" inclination is to suppose that perception is just
> passive collection of information about an "objective" reality out there.
> But consider what happens when you meet someone for the first time. There's
> so much a priori stuff kicking around in your mind. There are also some
> preconceptions based on what you already know, or think you know, about the
> person. If you know what his job is or what his role is, you will already
> have expectations based on that role. We haven't even gotten to the
> person's appearance, the setting in which you meet, or any of the rest of a
> long list of cues that activate positive or negative associations and
> activate filters, almost like your biological immune system. By the time
> you shake hands, you've got a complex and formidable static "straw man".
> You will begin relating to this "avatar" you've built, and it will be very
> difficult to develop any kind of relationship with the actual person. But
> there is something you can do.
> It doesn't feel good to be in an adversarial relationship with
> someone. (Well, sometimes maybe it does. But I hope that's not the usual
> case. :-)) But given that the "person" you're relating to is really a
> highly artificial static pattern, you can fix that with a deliberate act of
> Change your perception of a person, and the person's behavior
> will change. This is an inspirational way of thinking. It's not
> "rational", but it works. This isn't speculative or conceptual; it's
> practical. I have done it repeatedly, and it works every time. I think the
> reason it works is because you have surrendered some of your static patterns
> and allowed Dynamic Quality to dissolve them and open a pathway for
> authentic relationship. You can never get rid of all your static filters
> and perceptions. But you can replace some of the negative ones with
> positive ones. Then further relationship with the other person will build
> and strengthen positive filters. The thing about this that doesn't make
> "rational" sense is that this works perfectly well even though the other
> person knows nothing about your decision to change your perception.
> From reading what another person has written, you can't know what
> was going on in his life, what preconceptions and filters he had, what
> personal history had contributed to what he said and how he expressed it at
> that moment. If you find yourself reacting negatively to what he has
> written, please try to take a step back, change your perception, and try to
> relate to the person behind the writing. If you can do that, then you are
> engaged in a beneficial relationship, and you can both work to realize the
> value in it.
> I'll give you a personal example, by way of confession. When I
> first submitted my essay for posting on the robertpirsig.org site, I felt
> like a snot-nosed kid trying to insinuate my way into a game with the "big
> boys". I "perceived" everyone in the Lila Squad as a professional scholar
> and philosopher, skilled at rhetoric, logical debate, intellectual
> discourse, and armed with an arsenal of "philosophology". I felt
> intimidated and defensive.
> Anthony shared my essay with Paul Tuner, and Paul generously
> reviewed it and critiqued it in terms of consistency with MOQ. I genuinely
> appreciated Paul's help. But because of my elaborate array of filters, I
> perceived "attack" where there was only genuine assistance. I perceived an
> overpowering and disdainful professional philosopher where there was in
> reality just another IT tech like me. (But he really is scary smart!!) I
> now see what I was doing, and I have decided to change my perception of Paul
> Turner. Paul, if you read this, please know that I value your kindness, I
> value your knowledge, and I value your honesty. I want to relate to the
> real Paul Tuner and not my prefabricated ghost of Paul Turner. I look
> forward to our further work and fellowship together.
> Kind regards to all,
> John L. McConnell
> Office: 407-859-2637
> Cell: 321-438-6301
> Home: 407-857-2004
> Email: <mailto:trexxtechs@bell...> trexxtechs@bell... >
> 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.