I sent that last file by mistake, I have some goofy macros set up in word.
This is my first message to this group, I've recently become aware of this
whole thing, so pardon any obvious ignorance.
Re: MoQ advocacy.
To even discuss the progeny of MoQ, MoQ first needs to be put into the
device and context of society. I think one of the most frustrating things
for myself, is that having stumbled upon these ideas, and found reflected in
them my experiences, is wanting to share them with everybody, but I've also
discovered that although these ideas have opened much up for my internal
exploration of reality, and generated discourse among like minds, my
awareness and exploration of them is not necessarily healthy, or adheres to
the wisdom my eastern inclinations make apparent. The abstracts of DQ are
not the kind of things I care to share with colleagues, much less the world,
because they are in current fact, insane. Many components of a healthy mind
are fixed and held right by the unawareness of them. Just about everybody
knows the difference between a high and low value situation. Try explaining
MoQ the way we discuss here, to the "public" and there would be a definite
lapse in comprehension. You become a victim of the eternal crux of
Philosophy, prolixity and obsfucation. You appear false and pretentious and
our wonderful Quality dies in the miasma of its own explanation. I believe
that people are keenly aware of the DQ in the people they choose to listen
to, and Quality, if expressed in a social context as we discuss it here, is
about as far from Quality as you can get.
The later part of ZMM is written in the context of everyday life, simple
rules of thumb for daily existence. Most everybody has (hopefully) been
taught these things, its simple common sense.. Do people choose to follow
these tenets? Obviously, not. The world in large part is still a brutal,
ignorant, inefficient place. The ideas Pirsig expresses about conducting
work flow, and building Quality into life are excellent, but in my brief
experience of the discussion of advocacy, nobody has discussed professing
those kinds of things. They don't quite provide the thrill of the ultimate
that attracts so many of us to this way of thinking. If you were to share
any of this with a general public in hopes of a positive result, wouldn't it
be a reiteration of the same things people have been taught their whole
life. Might it scare off those budding thinkers in the throes of youthful
nihilism that this movement relies upon, and send them searching out truth
and substance in a more "Dynamic" format
I'm still digesting the idea of these levels leading towards quality. Do
those of you who are interested in advocating this system (if this is even
an audience here) plan to say that intellectuality is at the top of some
sort of spiritual/metaphysical food chain, because that is the way I think
it will be heard, and I can see that going over real well. I think if
anything were to obstruct the dissemination and mingling of some of the more
complex principles within MoQ, it would be the public's response to the
sound of those kinds of statements.
I think the challenge of advocating MoQ is expressing it with Quality. With
clarity and vibrancy. I'm certainly not saying I'm the one smart enough to
develop some sort of protocol, but I don't think its beyond the
comprehension of society in general.
take for example Chaos Theory, ten years ago your average work pal/class
buddy would have never heard of it. Now its quite possible if you were to
bring it up, some one might recall David Goldblume's water drop on the hand
performance in Jurassic Park. Basic concept, profound implications.
The way our culture is now the media is the only realistic way to influence
large numbers of people. Not that I'm convinced we could improve the
quality of life. Now just about every kid who made their parents buy them
Jurassic Park and subsequently watched it a thousand times, had the idea
that nature overcomes all obstacles, that life is ever reaching upwards and
outwards to thwart confinement, pounded into them at some level. Again,
basic concept, profound implications. We won't know the impact, if any of
that goofy movie on the minds of children until they have matured.
Anyway, those of you interested in advocating MoQ, use some of that fervor
to develop a system of dissemination and a protocol. I've thought that it
wouldn't be that much of a feat to reorganize a set of encyclopedias by the
biological, social, inorganic etc. guidelines. You could find an old set at
a thrift store, rip out the bindings and recombine them by cutting and
pasting, then redo the pagination and develop a guide that bridges the old
usage with your new MoQ design. That would be a good start. Or maybe take
sets of text books for grades 1-12 and lay them out the same way. I think
its kind of silly, but if anyone could put together course work that takes a
child through the beginning of his or her education up through college,
without so much changing the content, because that is the static knowledge
by which our competency is judged by others, but changing the interface,
which as I understand it is the edge of experience, the DQ for all the
kiddies learning, with that kind of system, and have it be efficient. That
would be interesting.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST