Rog and squad,
Like I said before I think it is really good what you are doing trying to do
with summarizing the discussions. It is of great value and I think it is
exactly what is needed here in trying to solve the total lack of
direction(some threads, not all).
BUT there is great danger in this though, the discussions have pointed out
to me is that we can not no where DQ is to be found, let alone that one
person knows where it is to be found. (There is so many input, every new
post rises so many ideas, so many different angles that it becomes very hard
to see where it was and is all about.) Cause that is what would happen or
not? (One person guiding the discussion.) It is not completely random where
the discussion is going as you pointed out Rog I hope that you are right and
that in the future the people summarizing and leading the discussion have
the ability and will to do this. But as I have noticed before, not many
people are willing to do this and looking at the reactions at your first
summary it seems hard to persuade people into it(or even a discussion about
it or I must have missed something huge). But I suggest that we do it
anyway, we need sq to build on. I call for more reactions, MOQ'ers PLEASE
STAND UP!
Davor
PS: I suggested in a previous post that we discuss about destruction, decay
and disorder on the different levels, anyone interested??, I'm willing to
''guide'' this new discussion? For the ''Overdoing the dynamic'' discussion
I like Jonathan his suggestion.
From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD Overdoing the Dynamic Monthly Summary (Prelim)
>Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:22:48 EST
>
>TO: MOQ
>RE: SUMMARY OF THE DECEMBER SEMI-MODERATED DISCUSSION
>
>Earlier in the month, JOHN and ROGER cut out the following from one of
>ROGER's posts and suggested that we experiment with a focused discussion,
>where one of us summarize and semi-moderate the discussion rather than
>leaving it strung out and incomplete. The idea was to see if it could work,
>and if so, use it as a starting place for future focused discussions.
>Anybody
>could start a thread, keep the discussion going with questions and
>reminders,
>and then offer a summary, which anybody could then add or subtract to/from.
>
>This is my second attempt at a summary. Comments/corrections are welcome,
>and
>if someone wants to continue the discussion, that is fine too. In this
>case
>this will be 'intermission'.
>
>**TO SET UP THE QUESTION, ROGER WROTE:
>
>"I agree that we can't know for sure which changes
>are improvements until new ideas are tried, however, I do suspect that
>there
>are patterns to success (In other words, we can't be sure where DQ is, but
>we
>can be pretty sure where it is very unlikely to be found. The solution
>isn't
>entirely random imo.
>
>What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction,
>decay
>and disorder don't? That is to me the fundamental question arising out of
>the
>MOQ."
>
>**THE ANSWERS:
>
>In response, CLAY and SOJ stressed that we need to focus on the
>dynamic.CLAY
>called it enthusiasm. ROB, on the other hand, suggested that the answer
>lies with more toward the static side with survivability.
>
>Most participants responded with a classic two-pronged static/dynamic MOQ
>response. MARCO suggested that what patterns of higher quality have is an
>ability to find answers that lead to new questions. BARD offerred that the
>solution was compassion and passion. WIM referred to the two balanced
>forces
>as stability and versatility. ROGER (plagiarizing BARD and JOHN) called
>the
>static quality 'harmony across the greatest span and depth,' and suggested
>that the route to this harmony was to establish a self-supporting
>environment. He referred to the dynamic part of the solution as
>'creativity.' MARCO found quality in the Span and Depth angle too, but
>PLATT
>was never converted.
>
>Though it was his post bringing this aspect of Wilber to the discussion,
>JOHN
>commented on the inherent futility in reaching harmony across the full
>span and depth, especially considering the disparities in the levels of
>consciousness between people. But, as MARCO's
>answers-leading-to-new-question approach shows, this isn't so much a
>problem
>to be solved as one that we continuously improve upon.
>
>**THE PATH:
>
>Quite a few participants addressed the issue of how to follow the path to
>higher Quality from a more personal perpective. The recommendations were
>startlingly similar.
>
>BARD recommended 'good intentions', though he was careful to point out
>(amid
>criticism) that his definition of good intentions requires "wisdom,
>tolerance
>and patience."
>
>ROGER and BARD stressed the path was to pursue harmony.
>
>WIM similarly suggested getting in tune with something bigger than one's
>self, and to fit into a bigger pattern.
>
>3WD also said we should 'attune ourselves,' that we should 'get in the
>zone'
>and that the path was paved with static stones.
>
>JOHN found value in 3WD's path metaphor and suggested that the key to this
>path lies in discriminating what is from what is illusion, and that each
>step
>leads to reconciliation of discrepencies and incompleteness. He commented
>that the path is ultimately one of 'discarded illusion.'
>
>JON mentioned that the path is working on one's motorcycle, CLAY suggested
>that we open up to the broader universe, and SOJ wrote that we should be
>silent and create an opening.
>
>**OFFSHOOT ON DESTRUCTION:
>
>A spin off conversation involved a number of people, including DAVOR, CLAY
>and JOHN, who argued that death, destruction and decay CAN be of high
>quality. They gave numerous examples. However, ROGER countered each of
>these and suggested that in every case people were either confusing
>destruction with flexibility and adaptiveness, or they were citing examples
>of circular processes where destruction was leading to reconstruction, and
>that it was the reconstruction which they saw as good. RICK and MARCO
>agreed
>with him, but those originally espousing this view never responded (at
>least
>conclusively) to the counter.
>
>**SUMMARY:
>
>A clear pattern developed to the various answers to the question.
>Overwhelmingly, participants stressed that patterns of higher quality
>achieve
>a Dynamic/static balance, and that the way to find this balance is by
>attuning one's self to the broader universe.
>
>Please critique/clarify/challenge/refute etc.
>
>Rog
>
>PS -- I did not include posts which made no sense to me, or which used the
>wrong heading. I apologize in advance for editorial bias. It is probably
>unavoidable. The solution which John and I were suggesting to the bias
>complaint is that anybody can volunteer to monitor. In fact, anybody can
>feel
>free to do their own summary of THIS discussion. This answer to lack of
>focus
>is not the final answer, and it leads invariably to more questions.
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
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 - 16:01:45 BST