Hi Christopher,
Thank you.
I very much appreciate your thoughts.
I do find the MOQ useful for organising experience - even if it is static.
Many postings in this group appear to move away from understanding rather
than towards it?
This group was one of the places i hoped for something better; and it is good
to hear from you.
Sadly, i have not come across many who share our view.
As a philosophy student, i too am guilty of adding to the confusion when
attempting to challenge the status quo of SOM dominated Western thought.
But, i can't help feeling there is a great need to have the MOQ more accepted
in our institutions. The resistance i have met with regard to the MOQ has
been astonishing.
I have been told there is nothing in it; i've been told it is dangerous
nonsense; i've been told it's utter rubbish, by lecturers who then
immediately, and cheerfully admit to having never read Lila!
>From much of what goes on here, in this group, i feel the institutions will
the more easily be able to dismiss the MOQ? And let's face it, they don't
want it.
Very often, it seems to me, certain members of this group adopted a
patronising authority and behave as if they feel they are here to teach us
all about something we don't understand.
Certain members of this group have elevated themselves to the position of
Protagoras strutting about the place with a trail of sycophantic followers
jostling for status as being worthy of the master.
Egos are inflated and many attachments made to the proliferation of words and
hot air.
Some have the audacity to repeat the MOQ under the guise of their own
ingenuity, and then tell us how improving the exercise has been!
Others can't help dropping the titles of all those books they have read, and
can repeat and quote from an almost encyclopaedic deconstruction of novels.
The block's been carved up a treat!
Not sure if i can take much more of it Christopher?
It's a long way home...
All the very best to you,
Squonk. :-)
In a message dated 7/28/01 9:51:26 PM GMT Daylight Time,
native_son@backpacker.com writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Quality vs Tao
Date: 7/28/01 9:51:26 PM GMT Daylight Time
From: native_son@backpacker.com (Christopher McClain)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
To SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com:
"Hi Christopher, I have no problems with what you say. I was merely pointing
out that many philosophers insist that quality is contained. Talking to them
is a little like banging your head against a wall."
Yeah, I know. My post was supporting your view:
"Dealing with philosophers, one would very often feel not.
I feel it is the philosophers who need to wake up!"
Don't worry, we are in agreement.
Cheers,
Christopher
>>
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 - 16:01:25 BST