From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 20:56:34 BST
Phyllis, Sam, Paul, Wim and all MOQers:
Either Paul or Sam said:
I think abandoning 'living being' as a useful term in the Moq might be the
way forward. Which is fine if you're happy with Pirsig's idea that the MoQ
needs to keep developing, less fine if you think that 'Lila' needs to be set
in aspic as the sacred text....
Phyllis replied:
Please, please don't do this. (Rather dramatic, but I am quite passionate
about this.) I don't think Lila needs to be set in aspic, concrete etc.
The
reason I object to dropping the term living being is that you make of this
philosophy something so abstract that it is irrelevant to life. And while
philosophy may "bake no bread" we do it great harm if we disconnect it from
its ability to be life informing. I think this is the reason for the success
of LILA and ZAMM. There are faces on the ideas.
dmb says:
Right on. The MOQ is about the world we all know and live within. To suggest
that "living being" is a useless phrase or that it refers to nothing is
pretty much unthinkable. Its absurd. If we drop the phrase, then what to we
call the creatures that dropped it? This is almost as bizzare as saying that
"Living beings are no different from 'inanimate things: they are just a way
of looking at and naming evolving static patterns of value." Yikes, Wim! If
you think there is no difference between a rock and a dog, then you are just
about the last guy I'd trust to take care of my pets - or even my
houseplants. :-)
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 : Sat May 03 2003 - 20:57:01 BST