From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 14:45:50 GMT
DMB,
Once again there is some good stuff in a few of the responses to my
inquiry about "practical application".
Squonks response surprised me the most! Thanks for clarifying things Squonk!
Maybe you can refer me to some of your old posts or tell me what your ideas
were. In your post David and Matt's post i still see the possibility that
one day the meeting of your minds will lead to other things, bigger and
better things.
You said: It probably doesn't look like
> much is going on from the outside, but there is plenty of action and
> practical benefits from this. Mari agrees! But can you point
something out other than the fact that one MoQer published a book on MoQ?
You also said: I like to
> fight it out with smart guys like Matt and Sam because they have a point
of
> view that is pretty well thought out and they seem quite sincere in
thinking
> its a valuable and worthy point of view. I like to take issue with the
> things they assert because I think my point of view is even better. I
think
> they are obviously and conspicuously NOT stupid, which makes the fight
more
> of a challenge, more exciting and interesting. > Maybe I think too much of
my own views, but I've spent a great deal of time
> and energy dealing with these philosophical issues and it seems they have
as
> well. So I love to debate them and others because it feels like an even
> match, a fair game and an exciting sport. I love it. I want to believe
that
> we make each other think. I'm convinced that its NOT just talking, that
> debate makes people sharpen their minds the way a workout strenthens the
> body. Its about getting stronger and more subtle as a thinker. This is all
I
> ask from philosophy and it seems like plenty. >
i agree. i've said a bunch of times that i find great value in a lot of
these arguements: they have at times lead to a new view, another
perspective. i feel very fortunate to have such a place to visit and
actually interact with! i wouldn't go so far to call any of you "my friends"
and maybe....just maybe that's one of the problems. Just a thought.
> Mari said:
> Did Pirsig write this book just so people could talk about it? i think it
> has greater potential than that. i wish a few people would say: okay I'm
in,
> what can I do. At least then we might have a "subject" that will lead to
> something beside more argument.
>
> DMB says:
> I think you vastly under-estimate the power of "just" talking about it.
(Mari says: In fact David that is one of the words that bugs the heck out of
me....i almost feel like appologizing for sticking it in there! Honestly!
>
> Mari said:
> ....there is nothing wrong with my wanting to move MoQ into "practical
> application" Maybe no one here is interested in that.
>
> DMB says:
> Practical applications? Like what? I'm really not sure what you mean so I
> don't know if I'm interested or not. Shall we form a new political party
and
> try to get some philosopher elected to the White House? That'll never
> happen. Ralph Nader and Jerry Browne were about as close as we ever got
and
> we all know what happened to them. Ok, there was Ghandi and Vaclav Havel,
> but they were the exception to the rule. Are we going to the MOQ as a
guide
> to educational policies? That one is almost reasonable. But consider the
> fact that we here in the USA are still working out the "controversy" over
> Darwinism. Practically speaking, we are lightyears away from a genuinely
> intellectually guided society that the practical application of the MOQ
> seems like the most remote of all possibities. The intellectual level
itself
> is just a tiny baby, a new thing in the world and is in danger of being
> lost. Practically speaking, I think the defence of intellect is job #1.
>
> Thanks,
> DMB
Mari says: You once made a comment about Robert Heinlein being a fascist. i
wanted to ask you to explain that. But inspite of your view of him,
i also recall that you admitted that Stranger in a Strange Land was one of
your favorite books. It's been a long time since i've read that book but
recall that VMS and his team of people who "grokked" set up a "church" in
"levels".... most people are static latched to their level until something
happens and they jump to the next level. It's obvious why that was set up
that way, isn't it David?
Writing about my ideas of "practical application" and how it works and what
it does would be a lot easier talking about it for me rather than writing
"realist" letters that are obviously not my strong point. These letters are
a stretch for me. Honestly i struggle to get these things out but it's worth
the effort in my estimation. My art is "abstract" so i have to reduce and
translate my ideas into English and struggle to put them into thoughts that
makes sense not just to me but hopefully to others. You and Matt write the
scholarly stuff ( other MoQ contributors write superb post as well ). In
fact this is what i know: i would not be the one to present any ideas in
written form to any group or government. That would be someone else's job
because it is quite obvious that i am not BEST QUALIFIED to do so. So far i
think Rudy would be best suited for this job. ( Rudy, if your out there
lurking this is meant as a compliment of the highest order )
It is very interesting, at least it is to me that when i or any of the
others who drop in from time to time here suggest moving MoQ into a social
practical action we very quickly get the extreme responses like: feed the
world, world peace or as you put it:
DMB said: Shall we form a new political party and
Mari:( might not be a bad idea. during the last election i put together this
"dream team" and when i mentioned it in casual conversation the response was
overwhelmingly positive: John McCain/Bill Bradley. It was funny because not
many Americans put those 2 guys together as a possibility for obvious
reasons but by "speaking them together as a team"[ abstracting] both
Republicans and Democrats alike said that was a great "team". i had to ask
"then why not." Maybe you know the answer David but like most people who
have no idea how government works, THE PARTIES would object worse than
Moqers do to my quest for "practical application" a GREAT TEAM would get
nothing done because they would have both parties against them....the GREAT
TEAM would be THE WORST TEAM maybe that's what you scholars are afraid
of....but who know what the reason is....in all these great posts addressing
my quest i still don't get what is WRONG with talking about and acting on
making it happen....the "discussion group" defense is not a defense in my
estimation)
> try to get some philosopher elected to the White House? That'll never
> happen. Ralph Nader and Jerry Browne were about as close as we ever got
and
> we all know what happened to them. Ok, there was Ghandi and Vaclav Havel,
> but they were the exception to the rule. Are we going to the MOQ as a
guide
> to educational policies? That one is almost reasonable. ( i take this as a
good sign David ; ) )
This is not a suggestion about an ALL or NOTHING kind of decision....at
least not exactly. In my mind it's about looking at something that can be
effected/affected by a group voice ( social level thing ). An idea to bring
to the table a mentality and level of quality that is absent from the
current public forum including those radio talk shows that you get off on
calling and arguing with David....something that will help others see
perhaps or allow them the option to choose something new and different not
just between the same old choices.
Maybe Valentine Michael Smith's reasons for starting a church instead of a
political party has some merit that would work for MoQ?
Thinking allowed!
Mari
PS i once talked to Gov. Moonbeam about Art...he would have made a GREAT
painter!
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 Feb 09 2003 - 14:46:44 GMT