From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 05:14:12 BST
Mark,
I won't say much more on this subject, but I do think you are creating a threat
that is not there.
Mark: "i have personally witnessed students naively exploring the forum and
being confused by terms such as Q-intellect; terms which have been presented as
synonymous with the MoQ.
Andy: Students are often confused. SO are teachers. You need to trust that
every individual will work out his or her own solution. I really don't feel a
need to intervene on behalf of naive and confused students since I spend most of
my time in a state of confusion. In fact, I have grown quite comfortable in
this state.
Mark: "Further, students and neoMoQers do not know what to make of people
asserting they are the author of the 'proper MoQ.' It does not look good."
Andy: The only thing I have heard Bo say is that he finds something in RMP's
MOQ that needs clearing up and improving. He has proposed an improvement. Many
others in the forum have taken Bo to task on his improvements and his view that
there even needs to be an improvement. This is only a side debate that has very
little bearing on RMP's original work. It is my view that all of this
discussion is positive for inquiring minds.
Mark: "Now please reflect for a moment? Imagine how it feels for an individual
such as i to hear the reaction of people dismissing Bo's views as ridiculous,
and all the while attributing his views to RMP?"
Andy: I think it is only proper for you to step in and say, "You are
misuderstanding the post here. These are Bo's views and not RMP's. However,
maybe we should go on and discuss just what is so ridiculous about Bo's views."
Mark: "Just because you can easily distinguish between the views of Bo and those
of RMP does not mean it is as easy for everyone else? A degree of tolerance and
understanding must prevail? A tolerance which has been exploited by Bo to Trojan
Horse his own views into the forum."
Andy: I agree tolerance is important here. But, I think you are wrong to think
Bo exploited this tolerance to bring his views into the forum. From my
understanding this is the purpose of the forum. In fact, this forum offers
space for anyone to "Trojan Horse" their views into the space. Bo is discussing
RMP and he has obviously put some thought into his views. Whether he is right
or wrong is not the point. We are all free to disagree or learn from him (or
both). I don't know why, but I seem compelled to respond whenever someone
steps forward and trys to control the discussion. Or put rules upon what and
how we should discuss the MoQ. This seems to me to be unproductive and counter
to DQ. If you disagree with Bo then point out to him where he is wrong. Try
and understand what assumptions he makes that differ from yours. Look for
agreements and common ground. But don't make accusations that his thoughts are
somehow damaging. This seems to me to lead nowhere.
Andy
Ironically, the natural dangers we now confront are not the ones faced by early
humans, but ones we created ourselves. Most people do not understand this. For
them the major enemies remain people: other nations, religions, criminals,
welfare recipients, capitalism, communism, government or environmentalists. It
is as though they spend their time worrying about termites as their house goes
up in flames.
Peter Seidel
> In a message dated 9/26/03 10:43:55 PM GMT Daylight Time, abahn@comcast.net
> writes:
>
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > I hate to jump in here, but aren't you being a tad bit melodramatic here.
> >
> > Mark: "Speaking as one who sincerely wishes for the MoQ to help others, as i
> > feel it has helped me, i cannot but help feeling frustrated surveying the
> > damaging consequences of Bo's contribution in recent years."
> >
> > Andy: I think that if you really wish for the MoQ to help others the easiest
> > thing to do is give them a copy of ZMM and Lila and then let them reach
> > their
> > own conclusions. Bo can't take anything away from that. Pirsig's work will
> > have to stand on its own. It doesn't need any desciples nor does it need a
> > following. Give everybody else the same room you had to decide which
> > interpretations are useful and which are not.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > Real learning is always its own reward and praise is as useless to it as
> > punishment.
> > John Taylor Gatto
> >
>
> Hi Andy,
> I agree with your thinking in this regard.
> However, and this may be the source of a perceived melodramatic note, i have
> personally witnessed students naively exploring the forum and being confused
> by terms such as Q-intellect; terms which have been presented as synonymous
> with the MoQ.
> Further, students and neoMoQers do not know what to make of people asserting
> they are the author of the 'proper MoQ.' It does not look good.
> Now please reflect for a moment? Imagine how it feels for an individual such
> as i to hear the reaction of people dismissing Bo's views as ridiculous, and
> all the while attributing his views to RMP? Just because you can easily
> distinguish between the views of Bo and those of RMP does not mean it is as easy
> for
> everyone else? A degree of tolerance and understanding must prevail? A
> tolerance which has been exploited by Bo to Trojan Horse his own views into the
> forum.
> Mark.
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 Sep 27 2003 - 05:15:25 BST