Hello Everyone, I wanted to clear up some misunderstanding that my posts seem to create. In some posts I ask questions concerning the MOQ. Many in this forum see this as an attack. My purposes are to increase understanding, or more deeply, awareness of the metaphysics. It would appear from many of the responses that I receive state that what I propose does not fit into the structure which others have built for MOQ. By saying that it is "not that and has to be this", some people are providing a very severe capsule for MOQ. This is something that RMP warned about. I have received quotes from the scriptures as held in two books as proof that what such people are saying is Truth. I look more at the Quality of what is written. Such an approach needs interpretation, not verbatim recycling.
I can understand that after a number of years a rigid understanding can form. My interest is not so much in defending that structure, but in broadening it for mainstreaming. Such mainstreaming was indeed prevalent in the 1970's. When I read somebody post that I am wrong because Pirsig says such and such, I don't think this is where RMP wanted to go. Such a thing is of course necessary if the intent is to create a department within a department of philosophy, as in a University. That is how such a thing works. I find such strict interpretations of the philosophy to provide eventual dead ends. Again, I do not think this is RMP's desire. If growth is seen as the objective, then sometimes unmoving ideas of MOQ must open up. This would prevent encapsulating the MOQ so that only a few can subscribe to it. I find this dogmatic approach self-destructive. Regards, Mark 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/md/archives.html
