Hello Andre
Regarding what you wrote first I know what you mean, after reading Lila's
Child and all that it seemed somewhat intimidating to join in here, but it
didn't take too long before I became my usual pompous hot-headed self even
here =) The truth is that even though I have a great respect for many here
(like Bodvar and Magnus for example, from reading their input in LC and
here) it wouldn't do anybody any Good to let that influence anything. If I
refrained from criticising Bodvars SOL for example out of respect for
example I wouldn't be doing him or me any favour at all ( and also I happen
to agree with Bodvar on many points, so then the ones that I don't agree
with becomes ever more important to discuss). That's the way I think
anyway - perhaps just a lot of nonsense, I don't know - but welcome anyway
=)
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)
Indeed stable patterns are a better term. Static somehow seems to imply evil
I have noticed. But the stable patterns is pure and simple everything we
see around us, and it moves around, and it changes and does all kinds of
stuff that we need to find out more about, on all levels. That's the way I
have always seen it. And DQ is of course always there, for the stable
patterns to perceive in their movement, and be inspired by, but the less we
say about it (other than it not being some "thing" that moves around and
"hits" things) the better. I feel.
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.
Indeed the MOQ holds immense explanatorily power - though not being a
solution-for-everything-theory, it gives a better perspective, and that's
more then enough - but for people to be able to understand it they have to
know the basics, and that's always been the trouble. As well as it was for
Plato or Aristotle - or Newton for that matter...
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).
My understanding of the matter is that everyone dislike to many of the
others view too much for this to be possible. Some here don't even agree
with the fundamentals. But perhaps that isn't relevant, at least not right
now. I think, that the spreading of the general idea is the most important
thing still, and for that we have Lila. Bodvar feels, and I agree, that we
need proper definitions of the levels to be able to seriously promote this
view - the only problem is that here is where we REALLY differ in opinion.
Any suggestions? =)
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/
