First, let me say that I have some technical difficulties following all the
MOQ posts. You see have this lousy hotmail account that gets flooded with
“bulk mail” and some of the MOQ stuff is automatically deleted. Plus it’s a
bitch to sort through all the junk mail to find you guys’ gems of
philosophical wisdom. So if I could unsubscribe my hotmail address and add
danc@innoport.com which is the email I actually use nowadays, I would be
able to contribute more frequently, but you probably don’t want me to
contribute any more frequently.
Anyway, I think that a hundred years from now there should be a “Quality”
section in Barnes and Noble right between the “Classics” and the
“Non-Fiction” sections. The Quality books should be the opposite of the
contemporary “value-free” literature in that they should all argue for some
sort of behavior or attitudes from their audiences. Nowadays this kind of
thing would just come off as being preachy since people aren’t accustomed to
the idea that morals are something they should study. Like the “Quality”
history book wouldn’t just say what happened, but would say whether it was
moral or not. The “Quality” cookbook wouldn’t just tell you how to make
some dish, but would tell you whether it was (vegetarian) moral to do so.
One thing that strikes me about Lilia’s Child is that the book doesn’t
really take a stand on anything. Every argument can be dismissed as
someone’s subjective opinion. Diana says this, Richard says that, Dan says
this. Who’s right? Well who am I to judge? One unified opinion is a lot
stronger than a discussion with lots of participants.
So, I’ve been thinking about what An Introduction to The Metaphysics of
Quality Book would look like, and I think it should be persuasive. There
will be enough people to criticize this kind of stuff without us pointing
out our own shortcomings. Like if you open up your Introduction to Physics
textbook it doesn’t say well so-and-so believes this theory and so-and-so
believes this other theory and we don’t really know who’s right. That’s for
the advanced book. The introduction just says point blank this is the way
things are. Now go do the review exercises and check you work because
there’s only one right answer. I think that the MOQ textbook should have
that same tone. The indisputable truth handed down from god tone. And if
we have to sacrifice the subtleties and ambiguities of the MOQ, that’s ok.
In the into the physics textbook they leave out all the subtleties because
they would be lost on the freshman anyway.
Here’s an example.
List the follow patterns of Value from most moral to least moral:
A. Cow
B. Chimp
C. Rock
D. Fern
Regards,
Daniel Colonnese
>From: diana@hongkong.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: RE: MD An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Quality
>Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 08:27:48 +0800
>
>Dan, Jonathan, Richard and all
>
>Dan wrote:
>
> > I have left out some great posts and even whole discussions due to size
> > constraints, mostly. It is already a 450 page book. I just cannot
>include
> > everything. In deciding which posts to use and which to leave out, I
>would
> > just chose one I liked and try to see where fit best. Some posts were
> > unclear at the beginning and were left out for that reason, but as time
>went
> > by I became very familiar with the archives and just knew where each
> > belonged. Unfortunately some of the early work is still there and needs
> > correcting but I am working on it.
>
>You see, reading over the comments on the LC from newer members
>it's clear that they *think* that they have read an honest summary of the
>archives. Yet that is not the truth at all.
>In my opinion some of the best material was left out and
>some of the worst given prominence. It's misleading and unfair
>on the original participants. (And for those of you who aren't
>participants just stop for a moment and consider how you'd feel
>if it was your words that had been taken out of your mouth and
>cut and pasted in ways that you never intended.)
>
>Dan:
> > What I do think extremely cool is Robert Pirsig's interest in
>the work. What
> > does that mean to all the contributors? (if you don't mind me
>asking.) Would
> > anyone like to see Robert Pirsig's responses to some of the questions
>raised
> > in LC? I know I would.
>
>
>Of course people are interested in Pirsig's responses. But at
>the same time it seems like a waste of opportunity if he only
>responds to old posts, and only the ones that Dan has
>'selected'. I suppose comments on posts I made four years ago
>may be of some interest, but it's pointless to take them so
>seriously because I no longer hold many of those opinions. Nor
>do I believe the other participants in the dialog do. In the
>years since then we have all revised and expanded our ideas many
>times over.
>
>And, of course, Pirsig already has responded to LC. But of all
>the wonderful questions he could have answered, he responded
>with some very elementary remarks to that idiot Struan. Yet, who
>can blame him? When you read LC Dan has skewed things to make it
>look like Struan was the only one who ever questioned the MOQ.
>Not only is that completely untrue, but Struan's objections were
>badly thought-out, uninformed and unrepresentative of the group.
>All Struan ever did was be more rude than anyone else. You can
>say, well at least Pirsig responded, but why settle for second
>best? Hundreds of people have asked intelligent and relevant
>questions about the MOQ, why do they not merit a response?
>If we're going to ask Pirsig questions, let's first gather
>some consensus on what are the most important things to ask.
>Then maybe we could put together a letter spelling out the
>things that concern us. That would let all members, old and new,
>polite and rude, have a say. Surely that's more efficient for us
>and for him.
>
>And Dan, style is the least of an editor's jobs, in fact it's
>usually handled by the most junior proofreader. The primary role
>an editor plays is in identifying the objectives of a piece of
>writing and shaping it to meet those objectives. In the case of
>an MOQ book you would be asking questions like
>
>Why does this book need to be written?
>Who is the audience?
>What message is it sending out?
>What is the best format for this message?
>How will it be positioned?
>
>By your own admission you only have the vaguest idea of what the
>point of LC is. And yet, that is the most important question to ask!
>Believe me, LC would be ripped to shreds in the marketplace,
>and anyone whose name is attached to it will look
>like a fool.
>
>Jonathan:
> > I still think that there is value in doing some more serious writing in
>the form
> > of essays on the MOQ web site. Personally, I have a few ideas that
>intend to
> > compile into another essay, but I have yet to find the time and enegy
>for it. I
> > think that all of us should be thinking in these terms. Maybe some of
>the essays
> > can be worked up to form chapters of a book.
>
>This kind of approach sounds much better to me - properly referenced and
>carefully written essays will let us present a
>much clearer view of MOQ.org opinions.
>
>
>Richard wrote:
> > Diana--- Just a thought.... I noticed that one of your criticisms of LC
>was
> > that the posts were "outdated." This may see, obvious, but while they
>may
> > be outdated to you, they aren't for anyone else in the world who has
>never
> > read them. Imagine if everyone who participated here read LC... it
>would
> > save new members and all who are intersted in things MoQ from being
>forced
> > to reinvent the wheel for themselves... and it would save dozens and
>dozens
> > of redundant posts asking questions on topics and subjects that have
>been
> > 'done to death'.... (people could still invent their own wheels and ask
>all
> > the questions they'd like of course... they just wouldn't be forced to).
> LC
> > could be a static latch for the early thoughts of this forum. And once
>we've
> > latched, our freedom to explore new territory is increased.
>
>Yes latching is important. That's something I've pushed for from
>the very start and that is why I'm working on a FAQ. In MF we
>have already identified a list of the questions that come up
>over and over again. We've divided that list into sections and
>we're working our way through it answering these questions one
>at a time. Quite a good idea actually.
>
>
>Diana
>
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:17 BST