Chris, glad to see you.

22 Jan. you  wrote:

> This is my first time posting on this list, so bare with me if this
> repeats old points. I have, as I'm sure most of you have, been trying
> to explain the exceptionality of MOQ to friends and , well, people in
> general really. And I think that we all have faced the same kinds of
> problems at one point or another, that being the problem of trying to
> get someone who is so deeply rooted in the SOM to be open to question
> their own view. It is not, I think strange that a lot of people seem
> to have a very hard time of understanding the basic concept of Quality
> as it is in MOQ, and that I think is not because of incapacity to do
> so, but rather because of fear. It stands natural that to change ones
> basic view of the world would appear to be a scary thing for a lot of
> people - even though many here I think would testify to the contrary -
> it naturally follows that one instead clings to an old idea with the
> same zeal you would find in someone hanging over a cliff, grasping a
> rotten branch. 

You are obviously no newcomer to the MOQ, perhaps you have 
been practising as a "missionary" for a while ... with meager 
results ;-). But we must see the enormity of it, as said before it 
took SOM (the intellectual level in my "book") thousands of years 
to establish itself so it's a long haul. We have no chance to 
become prophets in our time. 

> There is a very big problem here. I think you all would agree that
> this view that we hold is one that it is of very high Quality to
> spread to people, and I in turn would go further to imply that it
> might be a kind of duty, in some sense, for all of us to try to do so.
> As I reed Lilas Child before, Bodvar wrote something about the ancient
> Platonists, those that fought to have their ideas of SOM recognised,
> and how the Lila Squad was quite like that. I think I would agree
> there, and that leads me on to my point; 

An important and intriguing point: ZAMM describes the 
emergence of SOM how it emerged from is the old Aretê era, but 
what is this event in retrospect from the MOQ level context?  OK 
I don't demand that you take side in our latter-day Plato vs 
Sophist struggle, but the MOQ must gets its own platypus 
weeded out before it can take to the road.      

> 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. 

Right, I listen to discussion on the radio and/or read newspaper 
commentaries about political, scientific and philosophical issues 
and find myself wincing and regarding the participants and 
authors as "lost children". If just the MOQ had been their 
premises everything would have been straightened out in no 
time, I even start on letters to editors and such, but then Pirsig's 
about resolving at metaphysical argument at the end of each 
sentence manifests itself. It's so huge, the shift so enormous that 
explanations from MOQ's premises requires endless repetitions 
lest SOM kicks in. But your idea of writing down examples of 
SOM paradoxes (platypus) may be a very good idea (I have a 
note pad 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, after SOM (still intellect in my opinion) introduced the 
notion of TRUTH - of objectivity as contrasted to subjectivity - it's 
difficult to avoid claiming that the MOQ is true and the SOM 
false, meaning that the totality (MOQ) is greater than one of its 
levels. About the MOQ being no truth sounds like being false, the 
"many truths" is a dubious proposition.    

> Well, thoughts? Is this at all worth talking about? 

Sure, one of the more valuable inputs of late. "Tackar sâ 
mycket"!


Bo





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/

Reply via email to