Moffers,
it seems that number nine is going to be the winner. I also love this idea,
but I want to make some considerations.
Don't you think that this topic is going to change the nature of MF? Don't
you think there's the risk to lose MF discussions along one year, and fall
in a "philosophology" trap: an infinite discussion fully centered only in
RMP and MOQ?
So I say: ok, let's try for one month! But then I suggest to create a new
space of discussion dedicated to it.
So I vote for number nine, just for one month.
Marco.
p.s.
I received just yesterday from Amazon the English version of Lila, so this
topic seems to come at the right moment!
-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Data invio: domenica 27 febbraio 2000 3.26
Oggetto: MF CALL FOR VOTES - March 2000
> Hi everyone
>
> It's ~2 days before the end of the month, time to start voting on the
> topic suggestions for next month. You may post your votes between now
> and midnight GMT 29 February.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> Please use the same subject line as this post when you submit your vote.
>
> Please vote for only one of the topics listed below.
>
>
> 1
> In the event of an inter-level conflict is it ALWAYS the case that the
> higher level of Value, as defined in the MOQ, has moral superiority? Are
> there instances where this is not the case and how are they resolved? How
is
> it possible to recognize and/or resolve an intra-level moral conflict?
> (Marco)
>
>
> 2
> Is this static-dynamic split merely an epistemic convenience that we make
> arbitrarily or is it an ontological reality, transcending our thoughts and
> intellectual description of it?
> (Marco)
>
>
> 3
> What would our world look like today if the Sophists had won the debate
> over the primacy of Truth over Quality?
> (Marco)
>
>
> 4
> I have been busy the past few months putting together a book called
> 'Lila's Child' which chronicles the first months of TLS discussion
> group, from August 1997 to April 1998.
> The manuscript is now nearing completion and I would like to invite the
> focus group to critique 'Lila's Child' chapter by chapter. Specifically
> I am looking for suggestions to improve the flow of dialogue and help in
> finding any redundancies, misspelling and grammatical errors that I
> might have missed.
> (Dan Glover)
>
>
> 5
> (Original author Philip Wigg)
> 'Lila' was described in one it's reviews as 'having little to add but more
dull taxonomy'. Given
> that trying to solve moral dilemmas using MOQ seems to create as much
debate and
> confusion as not using MOQ and there also seems to be considerable
confusion as to the
> interpretion of Pirsig's levels, is this a fair criticism?
> (Horse)
>
>
> 6
> (Original author Denis Poisson)
> To further explore the Social and Intelectual Levels in terms of how they
work and their
> composition. Also, if DNA is the "machine code" or interface between the
inorganic and the
> biological levels, what form does the interface between the Biological and
the Social levels
> take and similarly the interface between the Social and the Intellectual
levels.
> (Horse)
>
>
> 7
> (Original author Kevin Sanchez)
> How would Pirsig unite modernity and postmodernity. Chomsky advocates
modernity
> claiming we need morality to legitimize our actions and justice is the
highest ideal of
> society. Foucault advocates postmodernity claiming that despite our need
of it,
> morality doesn't exists and that society defines its highest ideal as it
wishes. It seems
> Pirsig can't appease the moderns because of his reliance on experience
instead of logic and
> he can't appease the postmoderns because of his acceptance of a universal
morality
> instead of particular morality.
> (Horse)
>
>
> 8
> Can the MoQ be separated from LILA??? If so, how do we do it?
> If not, how can this group ever really achieve anything more substantial
> than literary criticism?
> (Richard Budd)
>
>
> 9
> Rather than pose a question, I'd like to focus on the original work by
> simply re-reading it together, with fresh eyes.
> And this proposal for March is designed as an experiment to see if we
want
> to cover the entire book together. If we decide to go ahead after one
month
> of experimentation, the entire re-reading project would take about a year.
> Perhaps you saw the conversations about all this in the other forum?
Anyway,
> there are 36 chapters in Lila and 12 months in a year. Obviously, that
works
> out to 3 chapters per month.
> So I propose that we experiment with this method for our March
discussion.
> We'll discuss the first three chapters. We'll work out the details as we
go
> along, but the main idea is to re-read big chunks of the book so that we
can
> see the context of all our favorite quotes and examples. We'll look at the
> literary aspects to see how they enhance, support or clarify the ideas
being
> presented. All the while we are just asking one main question; What is
> Pirsig saying? What does it mean?
> I don't even recall what issues are covered in the first three
chapters. And
> it doesn't really matter. The idea is to go through the MOQ in the way
> Pirsig intended, starting on page one and then page 2, etc. I think
> simplicity is the greatest feature of this plan. Let's read it together
and
> listen carefully to the main man. Not to agree or disagree even, just to
> really, really hear what he's saying. Lets get some pure Pirsig going.
Let's
> look again with fresh eyes. Let's look at Pirsig's words in their full
> context. What do you say?
> (David Buchanan)
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
