From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Aug 24 2005 - 16:38:16 BST
I don't like the way it was done and think it makes Glenn look bad more than anybody falling for his hoax. I think how people respond to the hoax is more important than whether they "fell" for it. I think the link Matt offered is great advice on how to view this whole dang thing....which is just wrong (despite being funny...the glasses part cracks me up),
..... I think it should raise some interesting discussions of the role of trust, honesty in deciding what ideas have value.
I don't think this is a cult but I agree that this place is "cultish" in how MoQ dissenters are treated. If Richard Loggins was known to be a dissenter on the list I doubt he would have ever been invited to even doing the paper. To be supported (trusted?) here you can only offer praise and never criticism.. If somebody disagrees with something they are dismissed as "not understanding" which is not always a fair assessment. So when a dissenter disguises himself by lavishing praise and is thus praised for their work it does kind of say something. What he did was wrong but it does bother me that a dissenter can not offer his ideas freely here...he has to disguise himself as "worshipper" to get any acceptance.
Erin
ian glendinning <psybertron@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam,
I completely support the "What doesn't destroy makes stronger line"
and would add that (whatever the motives and other outcomes) parody is
a perfectly valid contribution to any debate.
But for the record, I don't see MoQ as anything like a cult or a
religion - if I did I'd be off like a shot. Struan's use of the word
"salvation" is ironic. And I don't see Platt's behaviour and responses
to it having anything to do with the social intellectual debate about
the MoQ in this parody.
Ian
On 8/24/05, Sam Norton wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> It's worth also linking to this (hat tip to Matt Kundert):
> http://www.drizzle.com/~jwalsh/sokal/articles/fish-oped.html which says most
> of what needs to be said.
>
> I said to Matt that "If the MoQ has any long term worth it will come out of
> this immeasurably strengthened (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger,
> especially if it's only the egoes which die). But if the MoQ is as facile as
> Glenn/Struan allege, then it deserves to go puff in a burst of ridicule."
>
> For what it's worth, this does strike me as confirmation of what I said in
> my 'Why Platt must stay' post:
>
> "Where I find this process most disturbing is that it is predicated
> precisely on the MD forum being a social pattern. It is one that would
> produce a hierarchy of understanding - a Prophet; a high priest; sacred
> texts; acceptable interpretations"
>
> or as Struan put it:
> "SOM stands for Subject Object Metaphysics, a pejorative term used to
> describe anyone who has not yet found salvation in the MOQ"
>
> For all the antagonism towards religion, it's remarkable how much like a
> 'cult' the MoQ has become. To that extent, all credit to Struan and Glenn
> for exposing it, however mixed and dishonourable their motives.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Bahn"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:28 PM
> Subject: MD The MOQ conference hoax
>
>
> Greetings discussion members,
> It looks like Anthony and others are aware that they were the victims of a
> hoax at the MOQ conference. The acknowledgements for Richard Loggins paper
> have been changed to thank Struan Hellier and the picture of Glenn's posing
> as a Hunter S. Thompson look-a-like has been changed to someone else
> (Richard Loggins?). However, the paper stands as is. hmmm? We are all
> waiting for an explanation from Anthony and the rest of the psychedelic
> clique. For people who have been around moq_discuss, an acknowledgement for
> Struan by someone who has submitted a paper praising the MOQ and Pirsig
> should arouse suspicions. I am not condoning the hoax, but what is done is
> done. Now, It would be nice to hear an explanation. Pray tell Anthony...
> DMB...or anyone else. Is the back patting still going on? Was the conference
> still a success in light of this hoax.
> If you haven't seen it yet, it is worth taking a look.
>
> http://www.shellier.co.uk/moq.htm
>
> or
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~moq/moralGenius.html
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> 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 Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Wed Aug 24 2005 - 19:06:31 BST