On 7/18/11 3:50 AM, "Ian Glendinning" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dave, I was one who did respond to that thread (started by Alvaer). > The source of confusion, is indeed the work, or the content of the > work, the MoQ itself. > > I (perversely) see it as a good sign that it is hard to spread, it > means its good and it means it doesn't fit the SOM paradigm. > It would fail if it came to be an "it", wouldn't it. Dave Yes perversely, like spreadablity of ice cold butter is good. > I see this question very closely linked to the other recent thread on > the irony of so much SOMist analysis and argumentation over the MoQ - > not surprisingly such analysis can only lead to MoQish confusion or a > low quality SOMist substitute for the MoQ. Dave Right if one spends a large portion of two books criticizing the "Church of Reason", SOM, and all of Western philosophy and culture it's hard to see how turning around using said "reason" to build anew can help. Particularly if you suggest that insanity, mystic experience, and such are the only know paths to a greater understanding of reality. > > So part of the confusion is the aims / agendas of those working with > the MoQ - what they expect "success" to look like. Having a bulldog to > promote your message is very successful, if your message is reducible > to a pithy rallying cry like "survival of the fittest". Dave "Good is a noun." seems sufficiently pithy though a lot less understandable. > > What does MoQ success look like ? > And I do think that is an interesting question. Dave So do I. 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
