[David Yes, absolutely. I mentioned specifically academia not because of how unimportant it is, but because of how important it is and it's where the MOQ would have great impact.
[Arlo] I should have opened my post better, I was responding to what I see as a common theme (academy = SOM) and this was an extraction from your post not a reply to your intent. I agree, it is critical S/O lenses are are challenged in the Academy, especially in domains and levels where such thinking dominates, precisely because the Academy is a critical ally here, not an at-once-and-always enemy. [David] >From my lack of academic knowledge I don't know much about these to make a >quick comment here. I do of course know James and Dewey however. [Arlo] And I am no James or Dewey scholar, but I think there is ample evidence that we should be evaluating (and perhaps synthesizing) non-SOM frameworks. I think in this interdisciplinary way Pirsig's MOQ achieves great strength. [David] Well the MOQ also supports materialism but it does put it in perspective yes. [Arlo] I'm not sure how you are contrasting your use of "materialism" against my use of "consumerism", but I think yes what we need is perspective, absolutely. [David] I'll be sure to give each of Cultural-historical psychology, emergence theories, semiotics and structurationists a look. [Arlo] Do, I think a valuable discussion will emerge :-) as cross-discipline non-SOM frameworks are compared, contrasted and expanded. My two cents, anyway. 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
