David, Rick, etc
David B wrote
>You'd be surprized how difficult it is to keep people on topic even in
>"live" discussion groups. Its the hardest part. Believe me, I learned the
>hard way. The structure and rules are everything.. and this is coming from a
>guy who's into it for the MAGIC. Roberts rules and all that...
Yeah, I know, drives me nuts too.
>I like Roger's onion analogy and I think its quite right. But I suspect
>secrets in Lila. I think the levels of MOQ's hierarchy are better imagined
>as a series nested spheres rather than just simple layers, like an onion,
>and not a cake. If we re-read the book together, I'll bet we'll see an
>onion-like structure in the story and narrative as well. Betchya a buck. And
>if we read the book as it was written, there will be no need to debate how
>we slice that onion. Why complicate it with cutting issues, when Pirsig has
>already decided how he'd like to take readers through the onion. (Is anyone
>else starting to cry from all these onions?)
You've got some exceedingly good points. Setting our own
outline first and then fitting Pirsig into it does rather require us to figure out
the answer in advance. You know what'll happen, we'll choose only the
quotes that suit us and ignore problematic or unclear sections. Pirsig has
his own outline already, as you said, and he has selected examples to illustrate
his points, in fact all the storybook stuff is intended to enhance our
understanding of the philosophical stuff.
>PLUS PLUS PLUS re-reading it together would help us to see the literary side
>again. No one ever refers to those aspects in any way. We're missing half
>the book! C'mon, you know its true. When was the last time anyone quoted
>Dialogue or used a scene's impressions to make a point?
Nothing comes to mind. I've yet to see a good discussion of the examples of
Dynamic and Static - the song on the radio, the brujo, the heart attack. I mean,
those passages are the foundation of the whole theory. You'd think they'd merit
more than a passing mention.
>As to the issue of patience. I got nothin'. It takes time. In fact, a year
>is rushing it, but 36 and 12 are just so nice together.
But are you sure we won't be OLD by the end of that?
>Think of the simplicity of the plan. I thinks that's its greatest advantage.
Okay, you've swayed me. The next question is, what next? Who else
wants to play? How do we entice others? When does it start?
Rick wrote
>I do realize it's a little early, but I suggest next
>month's "official" topic be devoted to taking ideas on (1) developing an
>"MoQ Constitution" and (2) expanding and restructuring the forums
>accordingly.
I would rather discuss our methodology and the MOQ as a whole in the MD,
because those are ongoing subjects. I think specific well-defined questions are
better handled in the focus area. I'd rather see the chapters discussed in MF
with discussion about the discussion and the big picture dealt with in MD.
(Which is not to preclude other topics in MD as well).
Diana
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:39 BST