From: john williams (ducati900@bigpond.com)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 01:24:49 GMT
Mari
Wouldn't you have
> > to change the nature of education from kindegarten to
> > grad school?
> A new Dynamic model would be invented and would evolve as quickly or as
> slowly as need be. The nature of this model would allow users to watch and
> experience the change in process as it is happening.
> Wouldn't every textbook need to be
> > translated and reprinted?
> No. Not immediately.
> Wouldn't our day-to-day
> > language have to change?
> Yes. Especially for "the flock" "the willing" those partisipating and
> practcing the process.
> Wouldn't our governments...
> Eventually,Yes!
>
Your stealing my thunder (not that I've got a lot). You can't start with the
poor or the politians,you have to start with the people who think it is a
worthwhile cause. I think I could teach kids about Gumption and Gumption
traps and make it a useful tool in their education (page 274 ZMM).
Did you read Rudy's post "Quality Decisions" summed up what I'm looking for
here pretty well.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mari" <mld2001@adelphia.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 10:44 PM
Subject: MD "Practical" application
>
>
>
> Hi Erin, John, Matt, readers,
>
> dictionary.coms on "Practical" 1 Of,
relating
> to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than
theory,
> speculation, or ideals....
>
> Beside Pirsig what else is missing from the
> MoQ philosophy that has some subscribers inquiring about practical
> application?
>
> Reviewing some old posts, this one from 9
Dec
> by Platt to Rudy:
> Hi Rudy, DMB, All:
>
> > Rudy said:
> > I suppose that my biggest question is, where does all
> > this bottom out? Just how would you implement all of
> > this? How would you propose to teach the world to
> > think in MOQ terms and abandon SOM? Wouldn't you have
> > to change the nature of education from kindegarten to
> > grad school? Wouldn't every textbook need to be
> > translated and reprinted? Wouldn't our day-to-day
> > language have to change? Wouldn't our governments...
> >
> > DMB says:
> > I think its use is as a tool for explaining things. If that leads to
> > reforms in education or government that's just gravy. But its main
> function
> > is to serve as a coherent way to organize facts about the world. A
> > metaphysical system can't be implemented like a social program or a
> > business plan, but as an explanatory tool. It only tries to describe the
> > world in a better way, not remake the world itself. And getting rid of
SOM
> > in favor of the MOQ isn't as weird as it seems. He gladly admits that
his
> > MOQ is based on "the oldest idea known to man". His MOQ describes the
same
> > mystical reality that has been described many times and in many ways. He
> > says it like a liberal intellectual American midwesterner on a boat, so
> its
> > one of my favorites, but the MOQ is only one description of this view.
>
> I totally agree with DMB. Pirsig is not out to change the world but to
> explain it. Although the mystic idea has been around for millennia,
> Pirsig grabs hold of it in a new way, showing how a mystic moral force
> called Dynamic Quality created a world of static moral patterns within
> an evolutionary moral hierarchy.
>
> On first reading Pirsig's claims, one is likely to dismiss them outright.
> As Pirsig writes at the beginning of Chapter 8 in Lila:
>
> "The idea that the world is composed of nothing but moral value sounds
> impossible at first. Only objects are supposed to be real. 'Quality' is
> supposed to be just a vague fringe word that tells what we think about
> objects. The whole idea that Quality can create objects seems very
> wrong."
>
> The remainder of the book shows why his new idea seems very right.
>
> Platt
>
>
> Mari says: Give me a colored marker and lets use this "tool" as David
calls
> it to examine what gets said and where perhaps things get lost and or go
> awry. The cutting and pasting works to a degree but something gets lost in
> the process. David says :
> > "A metaphysical system can't be implemented like a social program or a
> > business plan, but as an explanatory tool.
>
> Mari says: ">>>>can't be implemented like a social program or business
> plan..."? Why not?
>
> Platt says: "I totally agree with DMB. Pirsig is not out to change the
world
> but to
> explain it. "
>
> Mari says: Pirsig may not be out to change the world. In fact he's hiding
> out. He obviously doesn't see Value in tending the flock let alone "the
> world". His choice of action in a way contradict his words.
>
> Here's how i would answer Rudy's questions:
>
>
> > I suppose that my biggest question is, where does all
> > this bottom out? Who knows for sure. Hopefully in a better place than
we
> are now!
>
> Just how would you implement all of
> > this?
> Slowly over time starting here amongst the willing.
>
> How would you propose to teach the world to
> > think in MOQ terms and abandon SOM?
> Slowly, over time, starting here amongst the willing. "Abandon SOM"?? Not
> necessarily.
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 01:25:38 GMT