[MD] Primer children's book

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Mike Craghead <mike at humboldtmusic.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Primer children's book
>Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:20:41 -0700
>
>Hi Dan!
>
>Sorry to come off as negative, usually I lean in the opposite direction.
>But maybe I'm just looking through different goggles here.

Hi Mike

I appreciate your comments and I have attempted to address your concerns. 
I'm optimistic (and realistic at the same time) that it is possible to 
explain Quality in terms a child can understand in ways palatable to both 
kids and adults. When you use the term MOQ, to what are you referring? 
Perhaps we're getting wires crossed.

I think the MOQ is adequately described in a few paragraphs in chapter 12 of 
LILA:
-----------------------------------
Phaedrus had once called metaphysics "the high country of the mind" -an 
analogy to the "high country" of mountain climbing. It takes a lot of effort 
to get there and more effort when you arrive, but unless you can make the 
journey you are confined to one valley of thought all your life. This high 
country passage through the Metaphysics of Quality allowed entry to another 
valley of thought in which the facts of life get a much richer 
interpretation. The valley spreads out into a huge fertile plain of 
understanding.

In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided into 
four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and 
intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If you 
construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, Biological, Social and 
Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," that is. Only Dynamic Quality, 
which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent.

BUt although the four systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive. They 
all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost independent of each 
other.

This classification of patterns is not very original, but the Metaphysics of 
Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual. It says they are not 
continuous. They are discrete. They have very little to do with one another. 
Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an extension of 
that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level can often be seen to 
be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where 
possible for its own purposes.
--------------------------------

By beginning a book using simple distillations of these ideas, one can 
branch out in all directions and the child will be exposed to whole new ways 
of seeing the world and all the opportunities available. And when they grow 
older and read ZMM and LILA for themselves perhaps the ideas contained 
therein will not seem so foreign.

>I have 3
>wonderful kids (6,8 & 9), bibliophiles all, and (among other labors of
>love) I work at an elementary school as a kindergarten aide in the
>morning/computer geek in the afternoon. And I agree, kids know quality!
>Definitely more so than silly grownups like me.

Congratulations on your nice family! My kids are all grown and living lives 
of their own. I don't really remember it happening they grew up so fast. 
It's good you're cherishing time with your children; the time passes so 
quickly! It seems like just yesterday...

>
>But I did not say that the MOQ is beyond the scope of 'children,' I
>asked if it was beyond the scope of a 'children's book.'

Let me see if I am understanding you now: A child might understand a book 
about Quality but - is there any adult who can write the story? I don't know 
but I find I do not share your concern.

>I'm thinking in
>terms of very young kids, which books really reach them, which
>children's books reached (and reach) me.

Such as? Input is appreciated.

>I'm thinking about age and
>audience.

5-6 years old and under - boys and girls and moms and dads and grandparents 
and great-grandparents.

>My frivolous arguments are only there because I think these
>are the issues that would come up in the proposed project. If there are
>solid counterpoints that squelch all of my points, that's great!

I offered solid counterpoints to your objections:

You said:

>In fact,
>through many developmental stages, isn't the differentiation between
>"self" and "other stuff" (i.e. SOM) crucial?

I said:

That is going to occur despite any books a parent might read to a child.
This seems like a frivilous arguement to me.

I take it your lack of reply means you don't like my answer. You seem to be 
asking whether a children's book on Quality would interfere with "normal" 
development like self differentiation. Of course not! It is a meaningless 
arguement. If not, please enlighten me.

I answered your other objections in my last post as well. If you have 
concerns please address them directly.

>It's
>just that I know that if I were presented with this as my own project, I
>wouldn't be comfortable with it until I addressed these issues; they are
>the challenges that either solidify the initial idea or help to modify
>it for the better. That can only help the quality of the project, can't
>it?

Well, in my experience, most times I find that I begin a project with a 
radically different idea than I end up with. I learn along the way. 
Unexpected circumstances arise which alter the outcome in ways 
unforeseeable.

>Going in with eyes wide open?

There's always going to be eventualities that one doesn't count on. It isn't 
good to have wide open eyes in a sandstorm. Too much clarity kills Quality 
yet not enough and Quality fails to take hold and flourish. It's a balancing 
act: doubt is not a reliable partner to have. If need be, fake it.

>I like to go through that kind of
>examination for myself before and during any "big" project, and as long
>as I can keep my focus and stay true to my inspiration, I find that I
>can improve the overall quality of anything I do, because it's all about
>balancing the inspiration with it's vehicle...

I try not to take on any "big" projects. Being a bear of small brain, I just 
do a little something and then I stop and take a look to see if I can do it 
better. Sometimes I can. Sometimes I move on. Later I come back and look 
again to see if I can do it better. And no matter how many times I go back 
and look I can always do better. So after a while I give up and I string all 
these little somethings into a little bigger something and soon I have a 
group of little bigger somethings that I can combine into a big something. 
And so on. And so on. And it can always be better and it is continually 
evolving.

>
>I don't see the idea of a "gumption" book as limiting 'myself' to just
>one part; I get to read the whole book! But I know my kids, I read a
>specific piece of the book to them because I saw it as specifically
>useful. They'll read the whole thing or I'll read it to them when I
>think it's time. You didn't read it until they were 12, that was my
>point; I think that's a great age for it.

I think ZMM is a wonderful book and full of possibilities. I also think LILA 
is the more important of the 2 books and therefore merits more focus at this 
time.

I still fail to see your point, however. ZMM isn't a children's book. Twelve 
year olds aren't going to get more than a superficial understanding out of 
ZMM. But that shouldn't preclude a parent from reading the book to them.

>I guess I'm just hung up on
>the logistics, putting myself in the shoes of the author.

Are you an author?

>For me,
>expanding small pieces of ZMM and Lila, sounds more promising than a
>distillation of the whole book(s) into one children's book.

I don't disagree. If you were to go back and read my original post to Arlo 
you would (perhaps) see that.

>Just my
>opinion! And again, I'm thinking about pretty young kids here. I can
>see, for instance, a "gumption" children's book: I can see where to
>start, and have a notion of where to go. My attempt at envisioning an
>MOQ book for young kids left my lenses a bit foggy.

You've admitted kids know Quality so if your lenses are foggy, just take 
them off and you'll see so much better.

>But it sounds like
>your vision is much clearer than mine in that regard, so please carry on
>with all my best!

Thank you for your comments,

Dan