From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 18:12:49 BST
Hi Squonk
I think the main thing to remember with MOQ.ORG is that it is neither a fan club site nor
a cult site. As such it is necessary that both opposing views and related views are
represented.
On 13 Oct 2002 at 12:36, SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Horse,
> I have been trying to introduce fellow students to the work of Robert Pirsig as i see them
> struggling with categorisation, substance based amoral scientific world views, etc. I feel so sad
> that i can but point them in another direction for themselves to explore if they would but pause to
> take a look?
>
> I recommend they read Pirsig's work and anyone who has written upon the Moq with Pirsig's
> input and comment.
> I then recommend they read The Quality event if they require a brief but excellent introduction.
> One thing i do not recommend is MOQ.org.
Then perhaps you could share with us the location of other sites that offers the wealth of
MOQ related information that exist here.
> Having recommended it in the past, students have asked me what SOLAOI is and who Wilber is?
Sound like a pretty dim lot then. There are a number of Wilber sites on the net and Bo's
email address is also available for those that wish to know more. Also, my name is
plastered all over the site and I rarely get anything aking me what SOLAOI is and who
Wilber is. Don't these people have email? Or do they just want someone else to do their
thinking for them?
> I suggest they leave all that for a later stage?
> 'But isn't SOLAQI by that bloke YOU recommended' they ask?
> 'Isn't Wilber preferred by a member of the MOQ.org as being more on the ball' they ask?
> 'Many other members of MOQ.org seem to agree this Wilber bloke is excellent'?
You forgot to mention Strawson and his critique and a bunch of other stuff that is also
relevant to a balanced and useful site. I could remove all of the aforementioned but
would then be accused of censorship, bias and fear of criticism.
> After a dynamic and engaging beginning, a visit to the org has them looking at me as if i am
> tarred with the same transpersonal psychobabble - and things grind to a difficult halt. They
> cannot see what SOLAQI has to do with it, and i am lost for words.
They really must be dim. SOLAQI - Subject Object Logic As Quality Intellect. If that
doesn't give them a clue then I'm not sure what would. Perhaps it is more the case that
these people are insufficiently sophisticated to grasp the idea that with something with
as broad a scope as the MOQ there are bound to be differing interpretations. I really
don't see the point in spoonfeeding folk with oversimplified versions of the MOQ. As
Pisig pointed out in Lila (assuming these people you mention have actually read the
book):
"Phædrus had once called metaphysics “the high country of the mind”—an analogy to
the “high country” of mountain climbing. It takes a lot of effort to get there and more
effort when you arrive, but unless you can make the journey you are confined to one
valley of thought all your life."
Ch.12 Lila
So it is with the MOQ.
Disagreement and dialogue are vital or this becomes a fan club.
> In short, the org has become an embarrassment.
To whom? Certainly not to me and judging by the number and quality of much of the
mailing list activity not to a lot of others. But perhaps you have a low threshold to this
sort of thing.
I don't pretend that the site or list are perfect or anywhere near it and we have had some
problems recently which are still being worked on. I've started a redesign of the site and
will hopefully include more and different MOQ-related information but the majority of
what already exists will still be included.
> Pirsig has said he feels at his best with his students.
> How can you create a dynamic for this forum while leaving it open to the varieties of egomaniacs
> who appear bent upon using it as a personal forum for their own self esteem?
I don't believe that this is the case. Bo, John B. and Matt have as much right to their
opinions and interpretations as you do to yours and this is a good place to present it.
That you seem to think of yourself as the final word on their particular views suggests
something of an egotistical stance in itself.
I believe that the dynamic of this forum is the variety of views that can be represented.
It would seem to me that what you are suggesting is some serious censorship issues
that I do not wish to get involved in.
> If you, or someone like you, does not send out a clear signal, this forum will be in danger of
> silting up with low quality distractions well away from the excellent work of Pirsig.
> Please Horse? Try something...
Short of making moq_discuss a moderated discussion list there is little that can be done
to stop people posting what they wish to post. There are the rules of the forum which
should be observed (including yourself Squonk) and if they are then this goes a long
way towards helping. Haranguing and flaming other members doesn't help either as
many get fed up with this sort of stupidity.
And don't forget that we still have moq_focus available for moderated discussions. I say
moderated discussions because to do it any other way is pointless. But apparently many
folk don't like to feel that a moderator should tamper with their work in any way. As far as
I remember all of the Steering Committee were subject to varying levels of abuse for
trying to do a good job. Is it any wonder that we became disheartened.
You could also look up in the ancient archives the kerfuffle that ensued when we tried to
put a bit of order (by way of charter and rules) into the way the list worked - Jesus! I was
accused of virtually everything except buggering sheep (and I think I may even have
been accused of that).
>From my point of view if I tried to do what everyone wanted then I'd end up doing
nothing. So I shall continue to do what I do in the same way.
I'm all for constructive criticism and I do thank people when they bring problems with the
site to my attention but let's face it Squonk, for the most part all I get for my efforts is
either shit or silence.
I'm not that bothered by either and occasionally I get some thanks - see my earlier post
to Platt - which is great but constructive criticism is even rarer than this.
One final thing to remember is that MOQ.ORG is the ONLY site on the net that Pirsig
has recommended AND was prepared to put into the anniversary edition of ZAMM. His
comments regarding the site have been favourable and I've heard nothing to the
contrary from him. For the moment that's good enough for me.
Horse
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:57 GMT