This is my first posting in MoQ _Discuss so a short introduction to you all is a good place to begin. My name is Andre, and am of the Dutch nationality. My background is Boilermaker/welder as a "younger" self in The Netherlands. My "middle" years were spent in Australia where, after having completed a degree in Social Science (PIT Melbourne) I worked as a social worker for 10 years in various areas of the public sector( Welfare, Education , Psychiatry). I returned to Holland and became a qualified teacher (in English). Presently I am a volunteer development worker, working in a very poor part of China on educational reform. I have been sitting on the sideline for a few days, reading contributions and wondering where I could 'jump in' and as Crossby said at the Woodstock festival of '69 " This is our first gig and we are scared shitless'". (Is what I suggest/ contribute worthwhile?). I am fascinated by the implications and potential of MoQ thinking and reasoning and have shared my sentiments with Anthony McWatt (who was so kind to send me a copy of Lila's Child) saying that Pirsig has given me a voice which has been denied or at least frowned upon for so many years. I have read ZMM and Lila (several times) and as I follow the discussions and the process of working-out-of-ideas find that I want to check up on it again ïn the original. I am still in the process of 'becoming' an MoQ' er and have found the explanatory remarks by Pirsig very, very usefull ( in Lila's Child) The level of discussion therein of very high quality. So why did I jump in now? It is a reaction to Christoffer's posting and Bodvar's reply ( I am indeed honoured to have contact with you Bodvar...I have followed your contributions with great interest and they have helped me clarify some fundamental MoQ concepts)...Hello Chris!! I agree it takes time for a new idea to settle in and be accepted by a larger community...let alone a completely different way of thinking. It means letting go of accepted static patterns ( I like Anthony's "stable" better. Static, for me means 'not moving/fixed whereas 'stable' implies a 'steadyness' but possible and capable of allowing for change) and replacing those with different/ unfamiliar patterns which, albeit make more "sense" (intellectually) but feel very strange (biologically... more difficult to change) and of course have implications (socially) simply because you will relate to other persons in your community differently. I think this is what Chis hints at ( Chris, if I misrepresent you please say) How can we make the MoQ more accessable/ how can I, in my own community of friends and aquaintances, persuade them of the higher quality that MoQ thinking brings. I am thinking along the lines of MoQ interpretations/revelations of major events that are happening in the world at the moment: the financial crisis, clashes of cultures (bombs used on the one side and increasing resentment and intolerance from the other side), the predominance of value in this world in terms of money (powerful!), the ecological crisis, how to interpret 'deceit' and 'lying' from a MoQ perspective (Powell's justification for Iraq in front of the entire UN Assembly with powerpoint presentation!!)...a manipulation of ....data? The crisis in education ( how do we educate our children?), urban renewal/degeneration, the ligitimation crisis (Adorno) of the democratic political system etc etc. Maybe I am way out of line here MoQ_ Discuss participants and if I am please let me know...it is only a suggestion to perhaps collectively, according to each member's interest and expertise, contribute towards a stance/interpretation on issues and putting these together as a "position" paper ( a la Lila's Child concerning the MoQ as a whole).
I feel at the moment I have gone on for far too long and have perhaps already taken too many liberties. Please tell me to pull my head in when needed. But this MoQ is so exciting!!! With trepidation I await your reactions. Andre On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:00 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: A Rally Speech (Christoffer Ivarsson) > 2. Re: Being-Aware (Ham Priday) > 3. Re: Being-Aware (Krimel) > 4. Re: A modern allegory (Christoffer Ivarsson) > 5. Re: MOQ and some interesting a-theology quotes about non-gods > (Krimel) > 6. Re: A modern allegory (ml) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:31:33 +0200 > From: "Christoffer Ivarsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] A Rally Speech > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > > > Bo, > > We all have different ways of working towards Quality. My role seems to be > the na?ve visionary who by shouting things like "once more into the breach" > hopes to bring people some inspiration. I refuse the post-modern apathy and > disillusion. And so that's my part. I think. Whatever it's Good for =) > > P.S. > The "bickerings and endless discussions" IS really quite fun, and most > importantly - educating, and as long as we do something to being it out > there, I couldn't be happier. > > > [Bo:] > > I have read you pep-talk several times, and you are a dear fellow. I > > have however operated as an undercover agent for many years trying > > to smuggle in the MOQ in various ways, for instance by "reader's > > letters" to various newspapers. It's often not possible to start from > rock > > bottom or use the Quality concept, or even the levels, but there are > > lots of ways to apply the MOQ. I can't say it has started an avalanche > > and I have lost faith in a mass "conversion", it took SOM several > > hundred years from the first quest for eternal principles to Aristotle's > > first recognizable S/O, so why should the MOQ fare any better? You > > may despise our bickerings and endless discussions, but somehow an > > agreed about MOQ must emerge and it takes time, even you may not > > live to see it. OK, my sombre remarks aside, keep up your good work. > > > > Bo > > > >> > Fellow MOQers, philosophers and internet alter-egos. > >> > > >> > I feel I must express my discontent, and what sometimes borders on > >> > anger towards the MOQ_discuss. The reason for this, you may feel is > >> > unjustified, and perhaps it is, but it is a low-quality feeling > >> > about the way things are going in general that I will try to explain > >> > and then come up with some kind of solution for. > >> > > >> > I am, as you may know, quite a bit younger than most of you, and at > >> > that I am known to my friends as the person who always voices the > >> > grandest, seemingly unreachable visions, and who whants things to be > >> > done _here_, _now_; and to be done in a grand sort of all in- > >> > fashion. In all fairness I submit this basic trait of my persona (I > >> > have, sometimes described myself as having the heart of a fanatic, > >> > but thankfully not the mind of one) so that you know where I'm > >> > coming from when I continue, but I also submit that I from my > >> > experience with working with the student union and various > >> > administrative university organs I do understand the Value of > >> > procedures, to haste slowly, and to get things right ( and indeed I > >> > am Swedish, and since that's basically the nature of our entire > >> > nation it should come naturally to me one can think ;-] ) - As long > >> > as there is a clear vision of the goal - the grander the better - > >> > there is no problem in the slow proceedings I feel. > >> > > >> > The problems arise when the visionaries grow old and tires, and like > >> > the revolutionaries of the 60's end up on caf?s in small groups, > >> > talking about a revolution among themselves, a revolution they know, > >> > deep down, will never happen. > >> > > >> > The MOQ_discuss, as I see it, is a kind of caf? where philosophers, > >> > young and old can get together and discuss their ideas with each > >> > other - and that such a place exists is indeed a grand thing. > >> > > >> > But me, beeing who I am, am not happy with just this. I want to see > >> > more. I want to see us pick ourselves up and make the revolution > >> > happen! I want to see us be Dynamic, start rolling the snowball etc > >> > etc. And I know; a metaphysical shift is an extremely slow process, > >> > and I know, it's not that easy. But frankly- > >> > > >> > I don't care. > >> > > >> > Most of us believe that the MOQ could be the most important thing > >> > since Socrates, and true or not, if we believe that we need to show > >> > it to people! We need to do Quality work. > >> > > >> > If I had the money I would start an Academy, build a MOQ > >> > headquarters and start a "Order of the MOQ" (and insist everybody > >> > wore silly moustaches or something like that) - or something (yes, > >> > yes I know it's static and all that, but it's just tools, and we > >> > need tools)! > >> > > >> > Now: to the somewhat more concrete part: > >> > > >> > I have gotten a few people to pick up "Lila" by speaking to them > >> > about Marxism and the MOQ in connection, people have found the > >> > connection quite interesting and have wanted to explore the matter > >> > for themselves: a Good hard example of how things gain much better > >> > clarity through a MOQ view, and that does get people interested. > >> > > >> > Finaly: I urge you all to be visionaries and na?ve with me. Start > >> > preaching more (I know you used to) and as for not becoming to > >> > static just hanging around the MOQ_discuss: we don't need > >> > conferences - invite people over for gatherings, create your own > >> > MOQ-cell and once in a while maybe we can all get together and talk > >> > MOQ over a beer in real life - so to speak. > >> > > >> > In fact - even though I only live in a small student room at the > >> > moment, my door is allways open to any of you who whish to come by: > >> > and if I create a small MOQ-cell here perhaps you would feel that a > >> > visit to Sweden could be combined with socializing with a few > >> > Swedish MOQers. > >> > > >> > So, this voicing of frustration turned into a plan, and I hope it > >> > sounds as good to all of you as it does to me lying here at the > >> > beach by the Mediterranean: > >> > > >> > Create our own MOQ-cells, and we have taken one more step towards > >> > spreading a Quality point of view. > >> > > >> > > >> > Have to go, will check in tomorrow > >> > > >> > Have a Good one > >> > > >> > Chris > >> > >> > >> 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/ > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 34, Issue 114 > > ******************************************** > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 12:37:37 -0400 > From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Being-Aware > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; > reply-type=original > > > Jean -- > > > > > Excellent. And that helps. A bit. But, by saying that > > existence is being-aware, are you saying that existence > > is all of those things (illusionary, material, etc ...or none > > of them, or only some? Or does your statement have > > any direct bearing on that debate at all? > > Either you are misreading me or ignoring my explanations, since you are > drawing conclusions that I never made. Please understand that I am not > interpreting Pirsig's MoQ in this discussion. Unless the pseudonyms by > which you identify yourself are avatars of some other participant, I assume > you are new to this forum. If you're looking for an explanation of > Pirsig's > Quality hierarchy, you should not be talking to me. "Being-aware" is my > own > term for what experiential existence is. > > In "Ham's assorted quotes" you picked up my response to Craig, who had > asked > (rhetorically): "So everything that exists is aware (rocks, plants, the > color green, democracy, etc." My answer was . . . > > "Everything that exists is aware to the SUBJECT who experiences it." > > [Jean]: > > There is a little ambiguity in the "it" of the last quote, > > so I am going to assume that you mean "the awareness." > > No. "It" refers to "everything that exists". The meaning of my statement > is that everything that exists is aware to the subject. (That should clear > up the ambiguity.) > > I find that providing descriptions and examples of a > > concept makes it wholly more comprehensible, and more > > visual, enabling the reader to see the importance of the > > assertion. Often, too, by getting too fundamental (such as > > trying to determine when exactly a fetus attains human > > status and rights) we lose sight of the multitude of other > > factors that influence whether, for example, abortion is a > > woman's right. That was my point ... > > Whoa! Abortion is a MORAL issue that has nothing to do with ontology or > metaphysics. There is no way you can extend a definition for existence > into > an argument for moral behavior. If morality is you're concern, join > another > thread here or start one of your own. > > > But perhaps that is not what you were trying to convey. > > Now to go back to your uh... cosmology? Eh, I shouldn't > > use words I don't know the definition of. > > You really shouldn't. For your edification, Cosmology is that branch of > metaphysics which deals with the physical universe and its relations. > Ontology is a theory of the substantive nature, essence, or "beingness" of > physical reality. > > [Craig] > > {Ham, reconstructed} > > > > 1) we know that being exists only because we are aware of it > > 2) whatever knows that being exists only because it is aware > of it, is fundamentally a being-aware. > > 3) therefore each cognizant individual is fundamentally a > > being-aware. > > > >You have provided no support for 2) > > [Jean]: > > Well, it seems I cannot find your response to this... meh. > > So I'm going to try to rephrase this in words that make > > more sense to me. > > Again, that's asking for trouble. Here is how I answered Craig: > > > I submit that it is self-evident that "awareness" is proprietary > > to the "knower" and that all knowers are cognizant "beings". > > Hence, being-aware is a self-evident principle. > > [Jean]: > > We constantly must interpret what people say. That doesn't > > mean that by asking for clarification we're necessarily using > > crutches though; there is always a simpler way to say something. > > One of my teachers once said, "if you can't explain something > > as so a third grader could understand it, you don't fully > > understand it," and the rest of my teachers are constantly > > instructing us to write essays as if we were describing it > > to one of our clueless relatives or friends. > > That teacher gave you wise advice. And that's really my point in keeping > explanations as close as possible to fundamental definitions. I want to > avoid having my concepts misconstrued by "clueless" third graders or > MoQists > behaving like them. The less struggle required for interpreting the > author's meanings, the greater the readers' understanding. > > > Back to the topic, here is my rewording: > > > > 1) we know that being exists only because we are > > aware of it > > 2) knowing that we exist only because we are aware > > of it proves that we are both aware and a being > > > > Which essentially, is something you either believe or don't. > > Except, I get the feeling that you're trying to argue that > > you can't *not* believe it. > > > > After all, what is the alternate explanation? Is there > > another way to "become" without awareness? > > > > It seems you say no. > > Right. We cannot be aware without "becoming". We cannot become without > being aware. As I said previously, being and awareness are mutually > dependent contingencies of existence. They are the individuated > derivatives > of the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy from which all difference is > derived. > > > If you say that a rock, according to you or me, is not > > a being-aware, yet nonetheless exists, you open up > > all kinds of doors, while contradicting yourself. > > What kinds of doors does it open, and how am I contraditing myself. > > > But if you say that a rock *is* a being-aware, even > > from my perspective, I must ask, as mildly as possible, > > how it manages such a feat without having a single > > organic component, and how come I am not > > implicitly aware of its awareness? > > The stone doesn't "manage a feat". It simply exists as part of our > construction of experiential reality. It's existence is "necessitated" by > man's intellectualizion of value. > But that's an epistemological topic for another discussion. For the > present, I ask only for your acceptance or rejection of the definition > "being-aware" to express existential reality. > > > Genuinely (though I have no relation to the Lord-person) > > I don't know what this signifies, and could care less. > > Thanks Jean, > > Ham > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 12:55:43 -0400 > From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Being-Aware > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Krimel, > > Here's a more simplistic explanation of why the six senses: > > 5. Why are there 6 senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense and > mind) in Buddhism? > > A. Because the mind is the most active of the senses, and one of > the most powerful. It can receive all the sensations of all the > senses, and memorize them, and accumulate all the good and bad ever > done, if not intentionally. It can make us hot with anger and cold > with fear, red with embarrassment and pale with sorrow. It is also > an element that is experiencing and consciousness, which makes it > hard for it to recognize itself. > > > http://www.dhammastudy.com/faq5.html > > [Krimel] > Mind? What is that? Where is it located? What does it do? All of the old > unanswered questions bubble forth. What you seem to be referring to is > perception or making sense of the senses. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:08:43 +0200 > From: "Christoffer Ivarsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] A modern allegory > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Khaled, everyone > > Excellent interview I thought. The main thing that I don't understand why > Platt and the other far-right people on this forum can see is the basically > the first thing that they say in this interview. > > The unchecked capitalist society of which the US stands as the utmost and > most far driven example of is a society that, regardless of actual > institutionalisation by any government or fixed social structure, is a > society where the social level remains predominant. There can be no > question > in anyone's mind that the consumer-culture that drives both individuals and > entire nations to take the most rash actions in order to sustain it, is a > system that is totally, and fundamentally a product of what the MOQ > identifies as social level. > > We may debate the fundamental nature of the intellectual level, but we can > all agree that rationality is a dominant manifestation of it, and if you > look at how devoid of rationality this ongoing quest for wealth is, you can > see it for what it truly is. We build a society based on consuming and > buying - the quest for things that have no value on any other level than > the > social level is allowed to direct and enslave the efforts of mankind, and > in > the process it might even end up causing the destruction of the very > foundation of our existence as we know it. > > This isn't news. But we are philosophers, and at we have adopted a Quality > point of view, and we should all be able to identify the social levels > attempts to blind rationality with empty social symbols. "Freedom" - "The > Pursuit of Happiness" - and above all "Patriotism" (a genuinely retarded > word in my book) words that are used in exactly the same way that "Sieg > Heil" were; no matter the original or alternative meaning of the words, > they are weapons of the social level. > > Come on now! We should refuse words such as "patriotism" and other > manifestations of rationality devoud social phenomena's, and we should try > to work to create social patterns that are aimed at the cultivation of > intellectual values - in balance with the other levels of course - and > therefore it is important that we first and foremost realise our > enslavement > of these social values that is the capitalist system. > > I'm trying to tell anyone what is the best way to do thins, I believe my > view has been made clear many times over anyway, but I am saying that a > part > of me seems to die a little bit every time I see people on this forum > seemingly mindlessly praising social level values, even more so here, > because I see it every day, as do you, in the world we are part of. But > here? > > http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09262008/watch.html > > //Chris > > > [Chris] > >> I keep saying over and over aging. And ideology cantered around the > >> freedom > >> to earn money is undeniably in service of the social level. It isn't > >> more > >> difficult than that. And Freedom. It's just a word. > > [Khaled] > > Chris > > Last night, Bill Moyers had a Professor on named Andrew Bacevich, the > > book they were talking about is 'The Limits of Power: The End of American > > Exceptionalism " > > > > he also has a few other books out. check them at amazon > > > > he echoes exactly what you are saying. > > Most interesting is that 90% view our way of life, including excess, > > overspending, overconsuming, as a given right and equate it with freedom. > > > > PBS online might have the transcript. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:45:00 -0400 > From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and some interesting a-theology quotes about > non-gods > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > [DM] > For me, we have to ditch any desire for such authority, but this in no way > means we are any less in need of finding what is true about life, what is > sayable, what is possible and what is good for us. > > [Krimel] > Sure fine, but how do you account for the fact that those denominations > that > embraced what you recommend faltered while those who retreated into a > theology rooted in authority have thrived? Doesn't this say something about > regular folk's demand for authority as a response to clinging to the myth > of > control? > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 12:01:15 -0600 > From: "ml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] A modern allegory > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Platt, > > That's a good story for the Republicans of thirty years ago. > With maybe a few exceptions, I'm afraid that it won't work for > today's world. Both will take whatever you make, they just > spend it 4% differently+/-. > > thanks--mel > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Platt Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 1:26 PM > Subject: [MD] A modern allegory > > > > Hi All, > > > > A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many > > others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and > > among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to > > support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of > wealth. > > > <snip> > > > > The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the > > Republican party.' > > > > 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/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 34, Issue 119 > ******************************************** > 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/
