[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[ian glendinning]

Platt, thoughts inserted ...

On 12/5/06, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> 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)

[IG] Or as I said earlier "lines in the sand" to try yet another metaphor.

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.)

[IG] In my view, those onion skins are Arlo's emergent collectives,
but for a single sentence generalisation, that's a pretty fair
summary.

>
> 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"?

[IG] I say, all valid ones are good, some better than others no doubt.
The last thing we should hope for is a "single view". That would be
falling into the old SoMist objective trap, as if because it didn't
have a tight "definition", it was somehow poor quality. That is the
old thinking.

>
> 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."

[IG] Really Platt ? That phrase "whatever trurns you on" was you best
attempt at summarizing your heroine Ayn Rand too. And, I'll wager,
none of the people you quote thinks that's a fair summary of MoQ.

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>