[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
... 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?

[Arlo]
Gonna nitpick here myself, Platt. In your latter rephrasing I find no problem,
but in your first formulation "between static patterns and dynamic
improvements" I see the same overprivileging of DQ as led to my problem with
your wording in the first place. Say "between static quality and Dynamic
Quality" and you'll find no disagreement in phrasing from me.

[Platt]
... there are several ways of slicing MOQ's  "fist cut" (to switch metaphors)
with one side emphasizing the static and the other the dynamic. 

[Arlo]
For point of reference, I don't "emphasize" static quality, I emphasize
"balance". I see DQ and SQ as inextricable Yin and Yang.

[Platt]
... Arlo sees emerging collectives ...

[Arlo]
Arlo sees that "balance" and collective activity are necessary for evolution
(and emergence of levels). What I personally see as the MOQ's first principle,
as you suggest below, is "Good is a noun". But, as you also suggest, that's
hard to get across to people as the primary point of introduction.

[Platt]
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? 

[Arlo]
Yes, that is the rub. Perhaps we are looking at it one-sided. Perhaps how the
MOQ is presented should depend on the person we are presenting it TO. For what
its worth, when I am in the company of my biker brothers, I don't get into
emergence and semiotics. I talk about the art of the cycle (using ZMM) and then
I have tried getting into the Indian thing (many bikers love Indian symbolism),
and depending on the conversation I've used both the "hero" and the "culture"
to get into MOQ issues. I even have one of my friends saying "a good bike" when
others ask "what kind of bike do you ride?". :-) (And that's a hard feat
considering the symbolic capital that comes with saying "Harley") ;-)

[Platt]
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? 

[Arlo]
I don't know, Platt. If its any consolation, you don't find universal agreement
within any other philosophical school either (that I am aware of).

[Platt]
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."

[Arlo]
It sounds "hippy", that's for sure. :-)

[Platt]
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."

[Arlo]
Its the best single summation of the MOQ I can think of, but like you say, it
doesn't get you very far. 

Now my question, and I know you personally don't see ZMM as useful, but Pirsig
himself calls it the "path to enlightenment". If, as Pirsig suggests, the MOQ
is the "path back", of what value is it to try to explain a road home from a
place your conversant has never been?