----- Original Message -----
From: "118" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Psychology and Philosophy
Hi Carl,
Happy New Year!
First of all, congrats on getting back into school. We are about the
same age, I will be 56 this year. At the age of 30 I went back to
school. During my "years of arrogance" this seemed very old to me,
and most of those I studied with were about 6 years or more younger.
I was called the "old man" of the lab (in jest of course). Now at
this age, I seem very young at that time. My father who is 86 says
that I am still a kid. So, 56 is a good time to start learning again.
Good luck with that!
Carl:
I'm keeping a 3.65 so far. (Damn statistics anyway.)
Mark:
I am not a brainiac by any means, especially when it comes to
metaphysics. However, I find it fun to contemplate such things. What
I present is my opinion only. Through discussion I learn much more.
I find MoQ to be quite eclectic and enjoy mixing some of my learning
through the years with some of those here. What I present is always a
work in progress.
Carl:
The attractive part of these kinds of boards, to me, is that you can say
whatever you feel, without regard to dogma. If we go off the res, someone
may disagree with us, but we won't get any kind of official censure. This
makes it a great place to try out new ideas. As you say, we are all a work
in progress, (I hope) although I do worry about the negative attitude some
political hacks take toward the idea of being progressive. What's up with
that? I know. Never mind. I told someone yesterday that if I could find
someone to pay for it, I would probably be in school for the rest of my
life. I enjoy learning.
Mark:
So, on to your comments...
Carl:
To begin, I appologize for taking so long to respond. I'm trying to add
something to the conversation, and I can't do that with a flippant
response.
To say that I'm not very quick-witted would be an understatement, but
then
again, I don't try to be. I have no personal dogma, per se. It's why I'm
back in school at the tender age of 56. (I tell people who ask that I'm
still trying to learn something.) I view this discussion as just that, a
discussion. I don't insist that anyone agree with me, and I hope I'm
projecting the idea that I don't necessarily agree with anyone else. It's
all up for discussion. I have had several changes in perspective since I
started reading this list, and hope to have more. Frankly, I'm not sure I
want to talk with people who are firm in their opinions. That doesn't
mean
that I'm not interested in their orientation, because I can learn from
that,
as I can from their opinions, but after a bit it becomes redundant, as
I'm
sure you're aware.
Having said that, I question your statement about ontology. We can
perceive
ONLY from our own perceptions, and we have no way of knowing if they're
correct. As you said in another post, there is an inherent conflict of
interest involved there. I am fully aware that my perspective on most
things is different than the majority, and have heard that from several
different people in my life. I can't explain why, but it is. I do agree
with your assertion that we're trying to fit our understanding of
ourselves
into an imperfect model. Calling that model 'psychology' or 'buddhism' or
'taoism' or any other ism or ology is equally problematical.
Mark:
I believe that we have the power to extrapolate beyond our
perceptions. At least this is what I see the imagination as doing.
During the day I am a scientist, and gather data which I then
interpret. From that I design more experiments to see what will
happen. It is usually the data which I do not expect that leads me to
discovery. Therefore, I do not consider any data meaningless. The
pictures I develop are extrapolations. They are models with which I
try to make coherent in a meaningful way. I treat metaphysics the
same way. I am not a big history buff in terms of philosophers, but I
have read my fair share. If they make sense, I incorporate their
frame of reference into mine, and tweak it a bit so that it feels
right..
Carl:
What do you call that ability to extrapolate beyond our perceptions?
Intuition? Synergy? Creativity? I think it's important, and probably what
sets us apart from the "lower" animals. That ability does come with its own
set of problems, though. A dog doesn't debate whether or not the shoe it is
chewing on is a Wal-Mart discount or Faragumi's. It just chews. It's the
ability to assign value to something that makes the difference, IMHO. The
problem arrises when we insist on a certain level of quality. I owned a
towing company for five years, and in addition to being the equivalent of a
Master's in Business, it also forced me to interact with a lot of people I
wouldn't normally come into contact with. Thinking about it, it probably
also afforded the equivalent of a Master's in Applied Psychology. I had
been a bit of an ivory tower sort of person until then. Dealing with
everyday people in stressful situations was a real eye-opener for me.
Different people reacted in a myriad of ways, and I had to deal with all of
them. I used the same basic approach you do. I would try one way, if it
worked I kept using it. If it didn't, I tried something else. The main
thing I learned through that was that you have to deal with people at the
level they are at, not on the level you are at. When someone is coming
apart at the seams in front of you because their car stopped functioning you
get a real insight into their basic personality. I think that's what
evicted me from the ivory tower faster than anything. Life went from
theoretical to practical pretty quickly.
Mark:
Psychology is a paradigm which is extremely popular these days, since
it claims to depict our very being. It can be useful, but I also find
it very confining. A big trend is evolutionary psychology. That is,
using evolution to describe why we do the things we do. I find this
model to be very incomplete, and somewhat misguided. We are evolving
at this very minute, and there is more to it than simple input. There
are our choices which I believe involve free will. There is little in
terms of free will in modern psychology, mainly because they do not
know how to deal with it. There is nothing scientific about free
will, it cannot be measured. So, it is not so much that it is
problematic, it is that it is the wrong paradigm in my opinion. But,
I will not rant anymore about that.
Carl:
Feel free to rant away! <G> Keep in mind that you're basically preaching to
the choir here. I agree with what you're saying, and have put a bit of
thought into it. A lot of people are fairly limited in their grasp of human
functionality, so they try to find a box that will describe the way humans
function in a way they can understand. Most of them end up with a
odd-shaped box that still doesn't work very well, but they hold it up and
proudly proclaim that it's the way it is. I generally see that as one of
the main functions of organized religion. It's a complete program, and if
you color within the lines, it's all you need. It doesn't handle questions
very well, but that's okay. For some, the act of questioning isn't allowed,
so they're covered. Some of the muckity-mucks of psychology are trying to
force their brand of psychology into the same mold. If you disagree, you
are a heretic, and should be shunned at best, or destroyed at worst. Freud
was a bit like that, and it's what drove the wedge between himself and Jung.
Freud demanded adherence to his ideas, and Jung wasn't able to do that.
Mark:
OK, I am fine discussing within this presentation of psychology.
Basically it is the conscious mind providing a model for the
unconscious mind even though the conscious has its basis in the
unconscious (imo). >
Carl:
I don't seperate the conscious from the unconsious. I think they
co-exist.
The problem here is one of dailectical monism. See:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dialectical_monism
Mark:
Well, this is an interesting play on words. Unfortunately it is hard
to see who wrote that article. But, I understand what the author is
trying to say. I agree, that the conscious and unconscious cannot be
separated. This is yet another problem that I have with some
psychology.
Certainly the current theories in physics can claim to dialectic
monism, that is energy and mass being equivalent, and such two
entities being the sum total of the universe. A problem I would have
with the concept of dialectic monism would be that it is incomplete.
If indeed Taoism (as expressed by the Yin and Yang) was a form of
monism, it would seem that nothing would ever happen. For indeed, we
can include the Yin and Yang as interconverting poles thus yielding
one big monistic thing. However, why do they interact as they do? In
order to explain that, a third entity must be included that is
separate from both Yin and Yang. That thing describes their
interaction and cannot be part of either Yin or Yang. As a part of
the Tao te Ching poem says: Tao begets the one which begets the two
which beget the THREE which CREATES ALL THINGS. The Tao is not really
one thing, it is an expression of a tendency. In my opinion it is
active in the same way that Quality is.
Carl:
When I first began studying oriental philosophy, I distinctly remember
seeing a figure that was the traditional yin-yang symbol, only it had three
dolphin-shaped things in it. I think it was described at the time as
positive/negative/neutral, but I can't remember. (It's been a LONG time.)
That actually fits with what you're saying, although I personally wouldn't
call the third aspect neutral. There was a guy on Coast to Coast last night
that talked about the way the universe works. He's written a book, and is
offering it for free in an e-book format. You have to send an email to:
[email protected]
and ask for a copy. The book it titled, The Unobservable Universe, and
purports to explain a lot of things. I haven't read it yet, but he sounded
like he was on the right track. I am not affiliated with him in any way, it
just sounded interesting to me, and hey, it's free. I think it will be in
PDF format. From what he said, it will add to this discussion.
Now, onward with the discussion. I spent a little time thinking about the
way things work. Part of that involved thinking about the different forces
in the world. As you already know, there are five accepted unifying aspects
in physics. There is electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear
force, gravity, and duct tape. These things hold the universe together,
according to physics. There has already been some disagreement on that,
specifically by Nassim Hariman (sp?) who said that there is no such thing as
strong nuclear force. They knew something was there, and affecting the mass
of the universe, but they didn't know what to call it so they made up strong
nuclear force. If you do a search on him there is some interesting stuff
out there.
Okay, I don't know enough about formal physics theory to really talk about
that, so I went a step further. I thought about about the four elements:
earth, air, fire, and water. (In Hinduism there are five, but I can't
remember what the fifth one is.) Taking that idea, I started looking
around. Earth is obvious, to most. All you have to do is look down to find
that one. Likewise with air. Water is equally obvious. Where's the fire?
That one stumped me for a little while, until I realized that the element
they call fire is actually the animating force of the universe. What you're
calling free will. It lends itself nicely to that concept, although I think
it's more complicated than it first appears. The main problem is one of
potential. Unless the potential exists, it can't happen.
Mark:
So, monism is interesting, but I believe it leads to determinism.
Free will requires an entity (such as ourselves) that is separate and
distinct from other things.
Carl:
The problem with that is that we can't exist as separate and distinct
beings. Do you see what I'm saying here? We have to interact with the
other elements/condiditons in order to exist. That's where potential comes
in. We have free will, but only within that which is possible. We can't
decide to jump up and fly to New York without the benefit of an airplane,
because the potential doesn't exist. The animating force can give us the
urge to do that, but the reality gets in the way. We can't decide to
interbreed with a bird, because the physics won't allow it. I am as adamant
as you are about free will, and our ability to make choices, but I'm also
cognizant of the limitations involved. We have to have an infrastructure in
which to do what we do. Does it lead to determinism? To a point, in that
we are limited to those things which a human is capable of doing, but within
that, we have a myriad of choices.
Mark:
It is interesting that the article discusses emptiness, and Nagarjuna, as
Marsha referenced. My opinion on that is that the word emptiness is a
descriptor and as such must be relative. If you tell someone that "x" is
empty, you are describing a state of being, not an inherent quality. A
good
description of dialectical monism was presented by Alan Watts:
"Really, the fundamental, ultimate mystery - the only thing you need to
know to understand the deepest metaphysical secrets - is this: that for
every outside there is an inside and for every inside there is an
outside, and although they are different, they go together."
Mark:
I am a big fan of Watts, and he was quite an entertainer (as he called
himself). He had a way with rhetoric that I find compelling. He is
referring to the 'two sides of a coin" analogy here. Which is fine
for instructional purposes for depicting the interrelatedness of
everything. However, for us to have any consciousness, the two sides
must be distinct. I have the iphone app for Watts by the way. He is
much better to listen to than to read.
If taken at face value, Emptiness is entirely deterministic. However,
from what I have learned from Buddhist monks, the concept of emptiness
is presented simply to get the student to begin to think differently.
As such, it is a tool, and cannot be taken literally. As Buddha is
said to have said, such tools are like rafts. However, once one
reaches the other side of the river, one can leave the raft behind.
Buddhism was never meant to be dogmatic, it simply provides a
perspective from which to work from. It has been fine tuned (and
misrepresented) over the years so that the student can reach
enlightenment more quickly. However, we in the West want to know
exactly what it is, so we take the teachings and make them into
truths, and then disagree with them. We are fighting windmills. What
the doctrines state is simply rhetoric to provide a path one can walk
on. What one does on that path is up to them.
Carl:
Agreed. Now, on with the discussion. <G> First question: What is
enlightenment? What does it mean to you?
Carl:
This is consistent with my personal opinion reguarding reality. We may
percieve a duality, but it's an artificial one. Could DQ exist without
sq?
I don't think so. The term would be meaningless.
Mark:
Yes, DQ and sq are presented by Pirsig for us to get a handle on what
he is trying to describe. We really have no idea what he personally
sees as reality, we only have his descriptions. DQ and sq do not
really exist as such, but are a representation of a manner of
thinking. For the purposes of understanding MoQ, we use DQ and sq to
explain other aspects of the metaphysics. We treat them as real to
see where our logic will lead us. Any metaphysics requires structure
of some kind. However, once one gets into that mode of thought, DQ
and sq are not necessary anymore.
Carl:
Okay. Where are we when we've transcended DQ and sq?
Mark:
Sorry to interupt here, but I agree. However, as you state
subsequently, psychology seeks to establish a "system" for the mind.
That is, the rules which govern our awareness. When you use the word
"clue", I take it to mean that we cannot provide an objective
presentation of the subjective. This is in fact what psychology
attempts to do through the "scientific method". This would be
"explaining" why we think the way we do. We cannot say where it is,
because we are creating the where, we are not finding it.
Carl:
This is a very astute observation. Thank you. I agree that we are
constantly co-creating our reality. (I use the term co-creating to
indicate
that we're working with that which is available. Chew on that one for a
second. <G>)
Mark:
Yes, co-creating, two things (or more) at work there. If we want to
take a pseudo-monistic view, we could say that all we experience is
our creation. However, this type of rhetoric has not worked for me
when I am trying to explain Quality to others.
Carl:
Exactly. That's what I was talking about earlier. We have to work within
potential. One of our limitations is our ability to percieve that
potential. In order to create something, we must be able to conceive of it
first. I think that's where your concept of quality comes in. If we're
working from a concept of lower quality, we end up producing things of lower
quality. I saw that repeatedly working with certain segments of the
population while towing. For them, life was a VERY deterministic thing. X
happened, and because their daddy had always responded with Y, that's the
way they responded. I could point out to them that if they responded with
Z, they would get a different, more positive result, but they would often
reject that, because it wasn't the way their daddy did it. Frustrating?
You bet.
Mark:
Yes, the laws of gravity are a concept. It is a structure in which we
interpret what we consider to be real. The concept itself is
invented, but this does not mean that the data used to create
"gravity" did not exist prior to its conceptualization. We must not
confuse the systematized models with where they came from. Newton's
presentation of gravity is a method for interpretation. It is quite
useful despite its enclosing of the data in a rigorous way. Einsten
broke free from this enclosure to present perhaps a better model from
which to work from which includes Newtonian concepts for every day use
(we cannot travel at the speed of light for example), but diverges in
certain cosmological circumstances (time keeping by satelites for
example). The determinism implied by Newton was also reinterpreted by
modern quantum mechanics to allow for the presence of "free will".
This, perhaps, has a greater impact on our daily lives, and personal
philosophizing.
Carl:
Agree. To extend the concept, what do you think of the idea of evolution
as
a continuation along the same axis? i.e. We are not adapting to the world
so much as we are adapting the world to us. We develop a new "ability"
because we create situations that call for a new ability. This could be a
central idea of your concept of reality as percieved by Pirsig. DQ and sq
are labels, IMHO, and not states of being per se. I need to explain that.
Okay. Something is DQ, then you percieved it and it becomes sq. I have
not
percieved it yet, so to me, it's still DQ. Does that make sense? If I
never perceive it, does it remain DQ forever, or simply become
irrelevant?
Mark:
I cannot disagree with what you say above. I present the concept that
we are adapting and not controlling simply to combat the notion that
we are controlling the world. Certainly we represent the world as
much as anything else, we cannot separate ourselves from it. The
terrain controls a river's contour, but the river also controls the
shape of the terrain. Our "ability" is no different. Perhaps a good
analogy would be when the colors blue and yellow blend to form green.
So, is the blue controlling the color of the yellow, or is it the
other way around? Of course the question is a bit silly. We could
say that the green controls the expression of the blue and the yellow.
It is taking this second format that helps me understand Quality.
More on my idle thoughts on that sometime.
Yes, DQ can become sq, but I believe the oposite is true as well; sq
can become DQ. If I enter into that mode of thought, things make more
sense to me. Energy becomes mass, but mass can become energy. Like
you said, DQ does not exist without sq. So it cannot be DQ forever,
it always has a little bit of sq associated with it. This is
symbolized by the interacting dolphins of the Yin Yang circle. A
frame makes a window, but both the frame and the opening are required.
Take one away, and the window disappears. DQ cannot exist without
sq.
Carl:
To extend the analogy, without the person to look through it, the window
becomes irrelevant. In this scenerio, the person becomes the animating
force. i.e. brings the "quality" of the window into context.
Carl:
Problem. "When the brain is asleep, the mind is asleep." We don't know
that, and there are indications that the mind is not at all 'asleep.'
What
are dreams? How do we know to wake up, (i.e. return to normal
consciousness) when we heard an untoward sound? Even more interesting,
what
about so-called "precognitive" dreams? Are they simply coincidence? Is
there such a thing as coincidence? I think you're addressing this with
your comment about preventing the interpretation of the mind in other
ways.
We know there is something else going on, but the current model doesn't
allow those things to be addressed.
Mark:
I think you are saying the same thing that I was. When we are asleep,
we are still present, just in a different way. The point I was trying
to make was that our very being of awareness does not simply originate
in the brain. It has been shown (I forget how), that the rest of our
bodies also makes up our thoughts. The brain is simply the final
place where we convert our thoughts into something we can share with
others.
Carl:
I think that's where the basic problem arises. We don't seem to be able to
interact without first putting everything through our intellect. Some have
a more developed intellect than others, and we see the result of that every
day. What would society look like if we stopped putting everything through
the intellect filter? Would we be just another big dog pack? We're social
animals, and need each other to get along. Most of that "get along" is pure
social conditioning. That's what psychology is trying to understand, I
think. Does that social conditioning actually provide what we think of as
"quality"? Food for thought.
Mark:
I am not sure what is meant by coincidence except that it is thought
that there is a mechanical world out there where chance is king. I do
not see how this can be the case. Chance is just another word for "we
do not understand". If chance were king, we would not be around. I
am a firm believer in the presentation of synchronicity by Jung. I
take it a step farther, however, to say that every moment of our lives
is synchronous. We just happen to remember the most important ones.
Back in grad school, I wrote a paper on the mechanisms of sleep. It
is complex, but basically it follows a circular pattern. It can be
analogized to the repetitive heart beat we experience, which is also a
circular pattern. Precognition is recognizing the patterns of
synchronicity in my opinion. We do it all the time.
Carl:
I know Einstein had a real problem with the idea of random chance. I think
his comment on it was, "God does not play dice with the universe." So your
concept of precognition is really one of predication? I don't have a
problem with that. We see potential, and recognize it, and are able to
forecast certain things based on our understanding of it. That does feed
into the idea of determinism, though. To an extent, I don't think we can
totally avoid at least some determinism. For example, we know for a fact
that once we wake up, we will eventually get hungry, and after we've been
awake for a while, we will get sleepy again. It's the nature of the beast,
IMHO. How we respond to those conditions makes the difference.
Mark:
As with any ontology, MoQ seeks to dispel the current notion of
Western psychology as "the best view to that inside". MoQ can be used
to demonstrate that psychology is lacking in true meaning, in the same
way that psychology can be used to demonstrate that any metaphysics is
lacking in true meaning (by saying that it is a product of the various
determining arisings which create it, to use Buddhistic terms). In
this way, modern psychology and MoQ can be viewed as being in a
battle. This is no different in concept from rhetoric being at battle
with dialectic, as presented in ZAMM. For rhetoric is a personal
presentation, while dialectic is an objective search for truth.
Carl:
I view dialectic as a method of searching for truth, and not necessarily
objectively. (Kant's Categorical Imperitive leaps to mind here.) As you
say, it all depends on the ontology from which the search begins.
Mark:
Yes, although I have a problem with the "searching" part of this. A
truth is something we create. I do not see how there is anything to
find. The better we are at creating it, the better it depicts what we
sense. A truth is like a constellation, we are connecting the stars
to make something meaningful. I will check out the Kant reference
when I get a chance. I like the way he thought although I do not
agree with him all the time. Probably because I am too ignorant of
what he is really saying.
Carl:
How do you respond to the statement about "discovering" the truth? I'm sure
you've encountered someone with an agenda. They operate in a manner that
furthers that agenda, and one day, you figure it out. Did you create that
agenda? It impacted you. It had a direct affect on how you do what you do.
It may have even run counter to the stated goals of whatever organization
you were involved in, but there it was. In a way, we do co-create simply by
"going along" (social conditioning again) but we also have the ability to
reject. There may be consequences, but we have that ability.
Mark:
What you call "Pirsig's objections" would be of similar nature to the
"objections" that psychology would have with Pirsig's model. The
question would be: Which interpretation of reality is most useful for
you? Certainly psychology has its uses, especially in the medical
field. However, outside of that it is possible to consider psychology
as a very powerful branch of Western thought, and perhaps somewhat
misguided in its Knowing the appropriate dogmatic approach. That of
course if for you to decide; I can only present my own reservations.
Carl:
My perception is one of the political aspect, rather than the scientific
basis. Most of what we call "science" now is based on political agendas,
rather than a pure search for truth. I think that was a large part of
Pirsig's objection.
Mark:
Yes, no doubt about that. I call it Scientism. It is really no
different from the high priests of the past telling everyone what was
real. We have got all sorts of scripture being written every day on
what is real and what is not. We have to take it at face value since
those scientists are so smart. We are soon not going to be able to
buy regular light bulbs because of these priests. Go figure, this is
where we have come with all that. It is all about control, which of
course is what politics is.
Soon psychologists will tell us what we are (in a nutshell). It is a
drone's world. Please tell me why I feel this way! I need a high
priest to show me the way!
Carl:
Actually, once they have everyone on drugs, it won't matter. <G> My problem
is that I won't take the drugs, and insist on figuring things out for
myself. Needless to say, I'm having a bit of a problem dealing with
society. The upside to that is that it's making a pretty good therapist.
I'm able to listen and hear what people are saying, rather than assuming,
(drawing lines within constellations) and coming the wrong conclusions. As
you say, the real problem is when we look outside of ourselves to identify
our feelings.
Carl:
Minor problem here. The whole concept of happiness is questionable to me.
I
have read, (although I don't remember where) that our percieved need for
happiness is a delusion. It's great if it happens, but just how necessary
is it for us to be functional humans? To me, it's important to know if I
am
percieving something correctly. The problem is that one function of age
it
to bring everything into question. The assumptions that I willingly
accepted when I was younger are falling apart, and I'm looking for a
better
way of determining what is real, what effects they have, etc. That was
the
basis of my question, and even restated as you did, it becomes more
relevant. It IS important to me that my conclusions be meaningful.
Mark:
Yes, measuring happiness has the same problems as measuring quality.
I was using it a turn of phrase. Every time we try to measure these
things, it gets confusing and they disappear. However, the concept of
happiness is used extensively by psychologists in a behavioral manner.
If people buy into this, then it becomes very real. Any model (such
as psychology) can create a reality. I just do not think it is the
one for me.
Carl:
This reminds me a bit of Hertzberg's Two-Factor theory. He realized one day
that if you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, and then you stop
hitting yourself, you don't feel good, you just stop feeling bad. He
extrapolated that theory to include what he called satisfyers and
dissatisfyers. i.e. if you have a lousy job that you hate, but you make a
lot of money, the money won't make you like the job. The flip side of that
is that if you have a job that you love, but you don't make enough money at
it to live on, you can become dissatisfied because of the money. The money
itself isn't enough to help your achieve 'happiness'.
Mark:
I try to determine if I am perceiving things in the most useful way.
If I feel uneasy about something, it is a clue that perhaps there is
something I should be questioning. My goal is to try to bring about
the most meaning I can. This is one reason why I truly feel that
every single thing has free will. What a marvelous world!
Carl:
Yes, and no. It CAN be a marvelous world, if people would just make the
effort to do what you're doing. I do the same thing, with mixed results.
Yes, Sigmund, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. i.e. I have a real
tendency to "read into" things, rather than taking them at face value. I am
aware of that tendency, though. The end result has been a lot less
certainty in my life. Oh well.
Mark:
No hurry with any replies, so long as I see my name at the beginning
of the post, I will pick it up. I do not have the time to read all
that is posted. But I will keep a look out for your name as sender.
Carl:
Okay. I'm trying to be more punctual, but again, I'm also trying to avoid
flippant responses. I think we're nibbling at the edge of the problem here,
and getting closer. From a business course a long time ago, half of the
solution to the problem is identifying the problem, so keep going. <G>
Later,
Carl
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
