From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 00:41:39 BST
Squonk,
>> Wilber is a Value sink
>> in my view.
>
Steve:
> ..and a cancer? Can you explain? What is so bad about Wilber other than that
> you don't understand him?
>
sq:
>Place the MoQ and Wilber side by side. Which has more Quality? It's your
> own sense of Quality that will tell you. DuMB was asked this question recently
> and chose to ignore it.
Steve:
The fact that every other sentence you write ends in a question mark makes
it difficult to know when you are looking for a response. This is a
possible explanation for DMB's ignoring your question. It confuses me,
anyway.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if he never read another e-mail addressed from
squonkstail@aol.com again. If I were he I wouldn't. I find it outrageous
that you are persisting with the name calling.
sq:
> If you visit Wilber's home page you will see a publicity shot of a bald Wilber
> dressed in a crimson robe staring enigmatically through a pair of expansive
> spectacles into the lens of the camera. I should think there are enough
> warning signs on that site alone to make the Quality sensitive individual
> laugh themselves stupid. Funny how some people can't see that isn't it?
>
Steve:
I haven't seen that one, but I know what you mean. I was turned off by some
of his books that picture him on the cover as well. I think there's a
saying that deals with this issue...
> sq: I am a tad frustrated the MoQ is dismissed off hand as a generalisation.
> Do you feel Wilber has Quality?
Yes
>
> Your message seems to be "stop posting to this list and look at some art." Am
> I wrong?
>
> sq: Yes, you are. The MoQ is Art. My message is explore and develop your
> understanding of the MoQ. That's why the people who run this forum set it up,
> in case you had not noticed.
Steve:
I had noticed. I'm glad we agree on that point.
In fact, I don't see where the problem is. DMB has made this same point
about exploring and developing understanding of the MOQ recently several
times when he suggested that the thoughts of others like Wilber (and
Barfield?) may help us to understand the MOQ.
I invite you to join the conversation about whether the thoughts expressed
by members of this forum as well as member's interpretations of Wilber and
others are consistent or inconsistent with the MOQ. The sense I have that
you do not want to enter into such conversations is what makes me wonder
what value you could find in this discussion group.
sq:
> The trouble with on-line discussion is that one can simply ignore point blank
that which you don't value. ...Face to face intellectual intercourse is not like
that, for a sense of social well being demands a fair hearing.
Steve:
I'm beginning to understand another problem. People make insulting comments
that I suspect they would never make face to face.
sq:
>DuMB likes the sound of his own voice. Nothing unique in that. But don't you
feel it requires an acute aesthetic sense of value to intuit when it is
appropriate to be quiet? Otherwise, the verbal diarrhea becomes a bit off
putting?
>The MoQ may have allot to say about this very sense? That's what gave me the
idea.
Steve:
What does the moq say about making insulting personal remarks anonymously?
Do you have the courage to put your own name under the things you say?
You've always been civil with me so I know you have it in you. I hope you
will communicate more appropriately in the future.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 00:39:25 BST