Greetings Oak and Marsha 28 Dec. Marsha responded to Oak's of 27 Dec.
Oak: > >Good evening all. > >The following are not rhetorical questions. Why doesn't someone > >re-write Lila's Child ? Hasn't enough been decided to make a book > >Semi-rhetorical: What do you all do in real life ? Marsha: > Greetings Oak, > If I were going to make a book, it would be short: > There has never been an answer, there isn't an answer now, and there > never will be an answer. The dance is the movement and boundaries one > creates to avoid or accept this. Bo: I was puzzled by your first entry of 20 December: > Good evening, MoQ fans. > My co-writer Max and I have commenced pooling our materials and > theories for a new book, which is as yet untitled. Once in a while, I > call it Code Blue. Good, "Deep Blue" was the Chess Machine that beat Kasparov (was it?) > Surprisingly, it's going to be largely centered around older themes > which need dusting off. Therefore, MoQ is not going to be the most > dominating feature. Not the most dominant feature?? How can the MOQ figure among other ideas and not become dominant? Impossible, it leaves everything in the dust. > After reviewing Lila's Child, which I just discovered, my early > determination is that the many discussions in there are usually not > fit for our novice target audience. Agree! > Besides my co-writer Max and I are going to rebuild the various > theories when and where it suits us. Both ZMM and Lila the Original > will be discussed and have a prominent citation in the bibliography. I'm surely curious to see the result, even if I wish that you would dedicate the whole book to the MOQ. I advice you to do so because the MOQ will be the dominant philosophy for the next millenniums. No less. I repeat your most recent question: > >The following are not rhetorical questions. Why doesn't someone > >re-write Lila's Child ? Hasn't enough been decided to make a book IMO Dan Glover's book is good re. its purpose of making a summary of the first months of the MOQ discussion, having Pirsig commenting some of the entries/topics was also a scoop. I really don't think the discussion has evolved much since then. On the contrary, in those first months - years - we roamed across all static levels. Now it's mostly about the 4th. - intellectual - one, due to it being the weak point of the MOQ and until that is remedied that MOQ will never lift off the ground. Dear Marsh's reply is typical of the "lead balloon" approach that makes it difficult to bring the MOQ's enormous explanatory power to bear. > > Semi-rhetorical: What do you all do in real life ? I'm a professional MOQ "evangelist" ;-) Bodvar "Bo" Skutvik 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
