Hi Ham and all - I know this reply goes back a few days in the thread - but I don't always have time to check in everyday.
This is more of an observation I suppose about the group in general - not a challenge or argument and maybe just a question. Yes, I do have a problem with the idea that we are 'evolving' hierarchically toward a 'better' state. I also don't really seem to have the same issues with identity that others of you have. It seems that a number of you who contribute regularly have other relationships to each other that go outside of this group - and occasionally those relationships wash over into this discussion which really confuses those of us (or at least myself) who don't know any of you. I don't have the problems with identity some of you have, because I don't know any of you. I haven't attached any specific characteristics to any of you - so you could all be one and the same and it wouldn't matter to me. Ultimately, in my mind, I guess I imagine us as if we are at a cocktail party and there are little groups of you standing in corners and every now and then I poke my head in and make an observation or two - but not knowing anything about any of you makes it easy for me to just accept everything you all say without trying to pass judgment. I don't say - oh there goes Ham again - he's a conservative essentialist and that's where he's coming from so I must disagree with him. There have been times when I have agreed and times when I have disagreed with every identity on the discussion group - and sometimes when I just get too busy to read and follow the discussions. When I get too busy, I often forget who is who and who represents what - and whether they are in agreement with the MOQ or not. I just read the text of what someone is trying to say without the labels. I think it's more helpful in fact when people leave out that part of the exchange - the part where they accuse and label each other. What's wrong with simply exchanging information and thoughts? - not labels and judgments? I think the MOQ is an interesting point of view, but I don't agree with all of it - namely the evolution towards something 'better' - certainly I DO believe we (humans and all life) have evolved over time - but towards 'better'? what is better anyway? - it's all just labels - I also don't necessarily believe in grouping everything into levels - more labeling. When I think about Lila, I think about Pirsig's point of view that we evolved intellectually out of the Victorian era for example and I can certainly grasp what he was getting at - I happen to believe that I live in a much more intellectually open and accepting time in history, BUT there are others who might disagree with me AND what if over time, our intellectual growth takes us back to a more conservative state? The move that some people have made to have evolution NOT taught in schools is evidence that an intellectual level that is static does not necessarily give way through a dynamic change to more evolved intellectual level. I think we have to look at when Pirsig wrote ZMM and Lila - some of the ideas do seem dated... Mostly I just think the MOQ is another intellectual tool with which to evaluate the world around me but it's not Essential that I adopt every part of it or reject every part of it. I don't have to group every action, event, entity, group or culture into being static or dynamic and I don't have to define everything into being part of one level or another. Ham, in short paragraph with a concrete example, could you please (if you don't mind) explain what your perspective is about Essentialism. The concrete examples really help me understand better. As I'm sure you all grasp - I'm not completely fluid with the abstract philosophical language - but trying to learn. Thanks, Margaret 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/
