[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Platt Holden]

Marsha, Arlo, David M, Ian, Khaled, Case, All:

Excellent discussion. Thanks to all. Let me bounce a thought off you 
and see what you think. We know the MOQ hasn't gained a lot of traction 
either in academe or with the public at large. I don't hold out much 
hope with academe because most philosophy professors are primarily 
interested in grinding their own axes. If the MOQ is to gain wider 
acceptance, it will probably come from the ground up, i.e. from people 
like us who see in it the basis for a better world.

Given that nearly everyone -- the butcher, baker and candlestick maker -
- views the world through subject-object spectacles, how can we 
encourage them to put on another pair that that sees the world as 
tension (or balance) between static patterns and dynamic improvements, 
or, if you prefer, between the moral forces of order and freedom? In 
other words, how best to describe the MOQ focus?

The discussion we're engaged in now reveals that among us there are 
several ways of slicing MOQ's  "fist cut" (to switch metaphors) with 
one side emphasizing the static and the other the dynamic. All agree 
that both sides of the cut are essential, as indeed Pirsig emphasizes.  
Furthermore, looking through our spectacles (to switch back again), Ian 
sees peeling onion skins, Arlo sees emerging collectives, Marsha sees 
free spirits, I see heroic individuals -- all justifiable views IMO. 
(If I've mischaracterized anyone's views, I apologize in advance.)

But here's the rub. With each of our unique intellectual patterns 
(based on our unique personal experiences) playing an unavoidable role 
in grinding the lenses of our MOQ glasses, how can we ever hope to 
avoid a confusing presentation the MOQ's to others? Are we left with 
the conclusion that there simply isn't a single pair of spectacles that 
will fit everyone that will enable them to clearly see the MOQ world? 
And if that's so, do we grind a half dozen or so different lenses and 
say, "Find the one that fits you best. All are good"? 

Intellectually, that may be the way to go. But emotionally? Somehow I 
can't get excited about a philosophy that begins with "Whatever turns 
you on." 

Or am I making a mountain out of mole hole?

Try this (stolen from Pirsig). With your SOM glasses on, you see a dog 
and think, "German Shepherd." With your MOQ glasses on you see a dog 
and think, "That's a good dog."

That doesn't carry us very far. But, maybe it's a start to what we can 
all get behind to spread the word about the MOQ.

Best regards,
Platt