Dear Angus,
I feel Pirsig is guardedly forecasting the future for a MOQ?
He cannot spell it right out because that would open himself up to all kinds
of attack.
But the parallel between the section where your quote comes from and his own
history is of some poignancy?
As for John Beasley; the man is a confused windbag and sometimes a confused
wind bag is just that: a confused windbag.
There really is no need to begin suggesting that he may actually be a world
changing force for the better.
As for me, i am neither either.
I support the insight of a remarkable individual, i.e. Robert Pirsig.
His MOQ is simple and elegant.
Wilbur and men of his ilk are, on the other hand, opportunists building
clouds of air upon the solid base of other's works.
(In his case James, Maslow. et al. those early 'pioneers' of transpersonal
psychology no less.)
Once upon a time the paranormalists highjacked the language of Newtonian
physics; Forces, energies and the like wafted through darkened parlours with
a cold chill.
Now, new physics terminology is being highjacked in a similar way; fields,
emergences, -ons of all descriptions, levels, etc. are all put to good use as
though they are real.
Structures feel the wrath of the wind Anus.
All the best,
Squonk.
In a message dated 11/21/01 9:21:47 PM GMT Standard Time,
arshilegorky@yahoo.com writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Moral development
Date: 11/21/01 9:21:47 PM GMT Standard Time
From: arshilegorky@yahoo.com (Angus Guschwan)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Squonk,
I think we should let Pirsig rule on your thoughts of
John, the degenerate.
LILA p 256:
This is really the central problem in the
static-Dynamic conflict of evolution: how do you tell
the saviors from the degenerates? Particularly when
they look alike, talk alike, and break all the rules
alike? Freedoms that save the saviors also save the
degenerates and allow them to tear the whole society
apart. But restrictions that stop degenerates also
stop the creative Dynamic forces of evolution... It is
only with a century or so of hindsight that it appears
evolutionary.
Angus
--- SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Wim,
> I find John to be most unhelpful in the extreme.
> He consistently displays a misunderstanding of the
> MOQ and is locked into a
> metaphysics of 'fad.'
> John is, in my view, a detrimental influence who
> can't be shut up.
>
> Have no worries my friend, for it is i who will
> leave this forum long before
> John does.
>
> All the best, always,
> Squonk.
>
> In a message dated 11/16/01 10:26:36 PM GMT Standard
> Time,
> wim.nusselder@antenna.nl writes:
>
> << Subj: Re: MD Moral development
> Date: 11/16/01 10:26:36 PM GMT Standard Time
> From: wim.nusselder@antenna.nl (Wim Nusselder)
> Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>
> Dear Squonk,
>
> I don't experience your 15/11 11:21 -0500 posting
> as very helpful
> in our project of developing the MoQ and finding
> new ways of
> applying it. Could you please reinstate your policy
> of deleting
> John B.'s postings after reading the first lines?
>
> I have read much better postings by you.
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim >>
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 - 16:01:38 BST