[MD] guidebook/primer

[ian glendinning]

Marsha, ( and Mark, and Platt, and Jos)

Let's wind back a bit ...

I'm against a "primer" if it's some noddy summary aimed at kids .. I
already said it stinks of indoctrination methods. (Teaching is another
matter - I'd hope we use Deweyian / Pirsigian approach in our teaching
methods, we don't teach the method / philosophy per se.)

"Thou Art That" is indeed a succinct summary ... but it needs "wisdom"
... of the kind you obviously have ... to appreciate that fact.

I am very much pro the idea of this group creating a public facing
summary of what MoQ means in the world ... otherwise the only way
people can get to know that is by being wise already or by being part
of some inner circle for some time-serving period ... the former is
impractical, the latter is unhealthy. We have already acknowledged
some great sources of material for such a summary, clearly Ant's is a
great resource, but it was aimed at a philosophically intellectual
audience, and like most stuff at hand, would benefit from some editing
for general public consumption. That is all I'm "promoting". If we
have the right balance in the editors we can avoid tablets of stone,
stasis, and a myriad of other pitfalls.

A balanced team, Platt, is not a matter of being PC, I hate the stuff.
(I actually have a whole Matster's thesis that concluded that the
gender balanced contribution did indeed affect the story ... never
part of the research objective ... this is reality.) Will people
please read Arlo's actual reasoning / suggestions.

I'm really sorry this is generating more heat than light, but as Jack
Straw would say, I'm happy to have at least started an important
debate for MoQ.

We really need to read each others words and not second-guess motives.
Which is where Gav came in with his constructive (if imperfect) suggestion.
I support constructive suggestions. Let's build on it.

Ian

On 10/11/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/10/2006 14:56:04 GMT Standard Time,
> marshalz at charter.net writes:
>
> I am  totally against the idea of a primer or guidebook.   TOTALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> Hello Marsha,
> I've often felt Anthony's PhD thesis is close to a guidebook already.
> I don't think there is a need for more than this at this time.
> A primer for the MoQ should not be rocket science - a basis statement of
> it's terms and their relationships would suffice. Simple and economical.
> Love,
> Mark
> P.S. Yes, men (or lickle ickle boys jostling for top of the class with an
> apple for sir, as i think of it) will fuck it up. Good and  proper!
> 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/
>