RE: MD The Simpleminds at work

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 10:07:14 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "RE: MD A metaphysics"

    Wow, love it.

    I'm responding to this after seeing that many others already have.

    (1) The process - many fast-moving jargon-filled threads that make it near
    impossible for newcomers / non-experts to pitch in. I believe that without
    re-instituting to moderated areas for controlled or segregated debate, this
    just a fact of life. You've done the right thing by pitching in anyway. (I'm
    relatively new around here too, and after about six months I can already see
    re-cycling of "debates" that have clearly been recycled many times in the
    years before.)

    (2) Your questions - I wish I had time to express an opinion about each of
    them. From your perspective as an educator of young children, I really
    support the concept of bringing MoQ into it, however like Matt I think it
    would be confusing and counter-productive to teach it as a philosophy in
    itself - just make sure that the way / Zen of Tao / quality is what you
    teach, making distinctions between the levels, and the significance of
    dynamic as you go. (With my own kids, I found that, simply suggesting that
    all "facts" are simply value judgements by someone or some group of people,
    and that it was always at least as valuable to refelct on those value
    judgements, as any weighing any apparent logical consistentcy in the
    supposed facts - goes a long way.) Apply the philosophy to your teaching,
    don't teach philosophy.

    (3) Philosophology - I think Pirsig is double-edged on this. Yes he pans
    many so-called philosophers for being mere philosophologists, but he himself
    reviews the works of others and expresses opinions about what he does /
    doesn't like about them. He uses William James in particular in Lila, but of
    course without synthesis of new from old, there is no progress anyway - the
    genius is in new synthetic ideas. No-one, not even Pirsig, started with a
    blank slate. It's all evolutionary psychology after all :-)

    Ian Glendinning

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Gert-Jan Peeters
    Sent: 17 September 2003 23:25
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: MD The Simpleminds at work

    Dear lurkers and others,

    a confession...

    Sometimes I can't follow the moq threads. They become to complex with to
    many philosophy statements and names a beginner doesn't know. I'm mostly
    reading the beginning of a thread, until my 'learning curve' gets to steep.
    I get blown away by the knowledgeburst most of you can ignite. I end up
    reading posts that one can only understand if you have read a dozen books
    beforhand. I back out and start reading a new thread until the same happens.
    I experience it as a low-quality event not being able to have enough
    gunpowder to join the forces. Using a knife while you all have
    kitchen-machines..
    Some threads end up in a kindergarten marble fight using expensive words
    wich makes it harder to see it's really just a yes and no game. But there
    are real beautyfull posts amongst them. I enjoy those. And learn a lot from
    them. For me the quality of the posts increases when it is fairly simple to
    understand it all. Pirsigs great power for me was this
    come-on-and-grasp-it-all-writing-style he used.
    Some of you all use usefull links to informative websites that provide the
    needed information. Very handy indeed. Others copy/paste and we lurkers
    enlarge our knowledge by it. Also a quality increasing step in mailinglist
    discussions.
    Allthough Pirsig has made a clear difference between philosophy and
    philosophology I am generaly feeling I am not able to philosophy until I
    know the great masters of the past. I also know he said to read those
    masters searching for back up one can use to strengthen your ideas. But that
    is generally what I am doing lately, while I used to write meters of paper
    with the most silly ideas. The more I read about philosophy in my books or
    reading your threads, the more I feel incapable of adding something usefull
    to the world of philosophy. Ending forever in lurkdome, until some day, when
    I am eighty, I find one of my posts in a book called 'Lilla's grand grand
    grand grand child'
    For some reason I have the idea that there are many others who share these
    feelings. Lurkers who have the most original ideas, but don't post them
    because they find themselves unable to defend it enough, because of a lack
    of knowledge. Isn't that a pitty.
    Yes, it is a pitty. You might have some missing link we are all waiting for,
    or some interesting practical subject that draws your attention in everyday
    life. Please - post it here. And your doing me a favor too. I can join your
    little 'low knowledge and/or high experience' based thread.

    For example:
    There are some subjects that made me wonder, where I need your opinions.

    1. I am a school teacher (children from 4 to 13) - I often get the urge to
    teach them the MoQ. Would it be wise? How would you do it?
    2. I regularly find myself trying to explain the moq to others (friends
    during beer) How do you do it? What do you tell them?
    3. I have great troubles giving grades to creative works the children make.
    Can the MoQ be a help allthough pirsig wouldn't allow it? If yes? Enlighten
    me?
    4. Do some of you try to implement the MoQ into psychology (or ectually the
    other way around that is)?
    5. If philosophy is of high intellectual quality, why get children?
    6. Is a religion a social pattern of values? And if these patterns are not
    of high quality anymore in a culture, why teach children that religion
    anyway?
    7. Why is a policeman allowed to hit a hooligan, but is a teacher not
    allowed to hit a kid that the teacher can't reach intellectually or social?
    And why was it allowed in the old days? What should a teacher do, if he
    doesn't want to use this biological jungle-language?
    8. Would it change our feelings about the whole MoQ if Pirsig appeared to be
    an ugly child-molesting sigar smoking bold woman? (like one of Roald Dahls
    witches)
    8. When did the intellecual level started - The old greek - the
    renaissance - the sixties ?
    10. Is it moral to have an opinion about a President without living in his
    country? (looking at Culture A using the values of Culture B)
    11. Can I tell you all Gandi was a great guy using my $2000,- computer?

    Looking forward to your replies,

    GJ

    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 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 10:09:43 BST