Chris, SA: > Chris: > > I'd like to say to everybody, that while one can > > theorize about the MOQ in > > larger terms then just human terms, the MOQ is an > > invention by man, for man, > > and if it produces a view of things that isn't > > really concerned with man, or > > even anti-human - It will be seen as having very Low > > Value, and it will > > fail. > > > SA: I agree with this Chris. This is why I let Dan > G. know it was a compliment that he regarded me as a > 'regular person'. If a philosophy isn't grounded in > pragmatic human life, day-to-day, everyday living, > then the philosophies' head is in the clouds with > nothing to offer the world except a good daydream > until they need to do the dishes or go to work and > these experiences will either become rifts in their > lives or the experiencer will find a way to have their > philosophy merge with their life in a positive way for > who would want it to merge in a negative way, nobody I > hope. This is why I brought up the post about > institutions. If the moq is to make any head way into > the rest of culture, then wouldn't it need some kind > of earthly foothold resting not just in our dreams on > a forum. I'm not sure if an institution would be the > way to go, thus why I looked for wider opinion here. > Of course what would the institution be, etc..., > etc..., well, what I'm basically looking for is a > field where the moq can play instead of purely > wondering in the clouds. I guess to connect this with > what Ron has brought up as follows, it is my intent > and with this intent I'm looking for the forms that > will express this intent in social relations, in > cultural changes. That's what this is all about, > correct, when it comes to where a philosophy is to > live out its' life in the lives of people everyday for > those that want a moq culture.
If you guy are looking for an MOQ culture what better recommendation can you find other than from the creator of the MOQ himself? From ZMM: "My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of the world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and that's all. God, I don't want to have any more enthusiasm for big programs full of social planning for big masses of people that leave individual Quality out. These can be left alone for a while. There's a place for them but they've got to be built on a foundation of Quality within the individuals involved. We've had that individual Quality in the past, exploited it as a natural resource without knowing it, and now it's just about depleted. Everyone's just about out of gumption. And I think it's about time to return to the rebuilding of this American resource...individual worth. There are political reactionaries who've been saying something close to this for years. I'm not one of them, but to the extent they're talking about real individual worth and not just an excuse for giving more money to the rich, they're right. We do need a return to individual integrity, self-reliance and old-fashioned gumption. We really do." Robert M. Pirsig Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance That's about as "really concern for man" as you can get, certainly not "anti-human." If you find it less than satisfactory, you are probably of a mind that considers the average individual too stupid to know what's good, or at least that you know better what's good than she does. Regards, Platt 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/
