[MD] guidebook/primer

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello Ian,
The basics of the MoQ should be easy to state in a clear and concise  piece.
Here's the basics: (or the eightfold way)!
 
1. Metaphysical basis: Quality - Mystic Monism. (a nod to all mystics - hi  
gav)!
2. MoQ ontology: DQ/sq (a nod to all philosophers)
3. sq - four evolutionary related levels: InO. Bio. Soc. Int. Evolution is  
of sq evolution - all levels evolve simmulteaniously toward DQ.
4. All levels are discrete and non reducible to previous levels.
5. New levels strive to evolve away from the laws governing immediate Lower  
level.
6. Newer levels are more moral then previous levels - it is moral for them  
to dominate older levels.
7. When Older levels dominate Newer levels it is immoral.
8. A higher Code of Art produces excellence at each level.
 
Job's a good 'un.
 
Love,
mark
 
 
 
 
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!