Chris: > What I think would be a good thing to be done right now, in this very time, for the benefit of the MOQ, is to more trash the SOM. I don't mean this in any kind of hostile way - I personally no longer feel the anger towards it that I did before reading ZMM and Lila - but it seems to me to be one of the most practical things that can be done at this time. I say, assemble all of the platypi that can be found, write it down, and have it ready. When someone asks "why MOQ" there is the obvious answer that since a metaphysics is no truth , only an interpretation, and a tool, it only makes sense to use the best tool there is, and why is MOQ better then SOM - here is the list! If we had such a list. It would just be easier. > > Well, thoughts? Is this at all worth talking about?
Ian: The main sticking points this idea tends to hit are (a) that summarising MoQ in ways for wider human consumption tend to offend those who focus on the ineffable koan-like nature of quality, and (b) any attempt to progress the MoQ's interest "as a group" tends to meet with all the political-power-of-authority objections - who's interests ? who's in charge ? etc - leaving purely organic, unmanaged, evolution. Both of which positions are perfectly understandable to a MoQist, but not the most pragmatic way to make progress. Akshay: To compile a list such as the one you suggest needs a lot of planning. Firstly, you have to make three sections (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics) and then again in subdivisions, by referring to a hierarchical dictionary on philosophy, writing out the misconception and its correction as suggested by the MoQ. Secondly, the question of who exactly is qualified to edit this list needs to be resolved (or perhaps the articles in the list will need to be classified as authentic or inductive). Thirdly, who is to undertake the responsibility of the entire project? I don't think Pirsig alone would more than validate and initiate the entire procedure. On a perhaps unrelated note, I do remember Pirsig saying that the MoQ is not "written down in stone" (in his paper titled "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values", I think) and of course, Phaedrus' famous line, that of the pencil being mightier than the pen. Hence, if we let our motivation for such an endeavour be that of removing misconceptions and enriching paradigms, then we can succeed, instead of if we set on a propoganda to show how the MoQ is valid. Ron: Good questions, how DO we put MoQ to use? I agree with Akshay's last statement of enrichment of understanding, demonstrating it's usefulness. It is THE key topic if you ask me. Putting it all together in a comprehensive body describing the positions and axioms of employment within the cultural Paradigm is needed without a doubt. How to execute this is another story. MoQ could do worse than Associating itself with William James Radical Empiricism and Pirsig counted among the American pragmatist. MoQ as An academic course or required reading associated with the American Pragmatists would be a start. But it ultimately rests on the interests Of the individual How do you inspire people To active inquiry? How do you inspire self discovery? 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/
