[MD] Barbarians & Hippies

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[beauteak4u at aol.com wrote]  
What has The MOQ DONE beside talked about it ( here a MOQ template is held up
against itself as RMP stated it or others interpreted IT and other things ).

[Arlo]
This is a slightly complicated answer (to me). First, the MOQ (or any other
metaphysical position) is "orienting". I'm not sure what "it" can do other than
structure those who adhere to it towards certain actions and away from others.
Once a crticial mass of societal acceptance is met, cultural structures begin
to reflect this position, which in turn "normalizes" and reifies this
"orienting".

I don't think the MOQ has hit this level of critical mass... yet. This is not to
say its effects won't, or aren't, felt. But it won't be "here". It will be in
value-decisions you make. So the question is, for me, not "what has the MOQ
done?", but "what have I done because of MOQ influence?". Only when many have
answered this, will social structures begin to reflect the MOQ as a cultural
pattern "with power".

[beauteak4u at aol.com wrote] 
Sometimes that's what this place ' moq discussion' seems to be, at least to me:
Intelligence with the potentiality to evolve to another level but instead talks
and piss's over each others position. Is it much different than a
position/possession of land, political, or religious belief/view?

[Arlo]
In ZMM, Pirsig and the Chairman clash over interpreting one of Plato's
dialogues, written over 2000 years ago. There is bound to be clash over
interpreting the MOQ. And there are bound to be "camps", as in any other
metaphysical arena. There are "purists" (the MOQ is only what Pirsig says, and
nothing more), "selectors" (the MOQ is what agrees with my ideology and nothing
more), "dissenters" (the MOQ is inadequate, and should be rethought) and
"extenders" (the MOQ, as written by Pirsig, is a good starting point, but needs
more), and others, and many find themselves with feet in both camps.

Your other point is the purpose of "moq discuss". It has many. One would simply
be a reifying point for those with an interest, to come and meet and read and
reaffirm the value of the MOQ. Another is phatic, the unavoidable (and
desirable) social-connection and involvement. Another is "identity
construction", a place where, via dialogue, one can hone and sharpen one's
position. And I'm sure others can express their own valued interactions herein.

But I do caution against "technological determinism". That is, electronic bbs
are typically not well-suited for a depth of dialogue. This is not to say they
can't sustain it, but habituated use and certain structuring effects
(unmoderated, inline commenting, revoicing, etc) tend to evidence that bbs are
more suited for certain interactions and less so for others. But it is the
"tool" most of us are habituated to. In other words, because moq discuss isn't
saving the world is little reason to condemn it. All things have their import
and their affordances. Perhaps you'd suggest a topic on "moq focus", or author
a paper for review on the site? I think their is potential with the idea of a
MOQ Wiki (as was set up), but like we find in our classrooms, wiki authoring is
novel enough to create reluctance. 

[beauteak4u at aol.com wrote] 
We get a picture in our mind when we hear the word "hippie" what is the image
you get when you hear "MOQer"? The world knew about hippies. Who knows about
MOQQies?

[Arlo]
This is the critical mass thing I was talking about. No, there are not enough of
"us" (as an organized collective, not in the least a "vocal" one) to warrant
such structural patterning. And, as an aside, the formation of visual
collectives (such as markers that denote hippiedom) are dependent (largely) on
both primary identification as "such" and willful public proclamation of such
an identity. That is, tiedies became part of the hippie uniform because people
(1) identified themselves primarily as a "hippie" and (2) found value in
demonstrating this publically. But this trend was never handed down by a
"hippie board", it simply emerged naturally.

Also, societal recognition typically is generated by "deviance". The hippies
were so recognized because they violated social norms. As were the beatniks,
and the Bohemians. That leaves me with a final question, are MOQers, overall,
"contrarians" or "conformists"? Brujos or Priests?

Or, like Sartre, is it enough that from our comfy airmchairs of conformity we
pay lipservice to contrarianism?

Arlo