[MD] guidebook/primer

[ian glendinning]

Hi Mark,

That's a great concise statement, as good as any so far. Worth building on.
(That's kinda what I was after following last year's conference, my
"lines in the sand", but didn't get any traction, but that's history.)

I think the point here, to address Marsha's concerns, is really about
the sense in which that is a "primer", and what makes a "good" primer.

A good summary like that begs many questions (in the colloquial
semse), and dare I say, definitions of some of the pre-existing terms
used. You'd need to be interested in what it is, and have some
philosophical knowledge to get past the first line, for example.

What it is not is something you would necessarily start with to teach
"the general public" what MoQ is about - not a primer in that sense.
We need different kinds of material for different audiences - the
expert in the content is not necessarily the expert in being an editor
/ writer for all those audiences. We can all invent summaries from the
high esoteric and mystical "Thou Art That" to the highly technical
comarative philisophological, and all points in between.

I favour a "public primer" ... put in terms the public are interested in.

Stick with me Mark, I call this progress.
Regards
Ian
aka Napoleon
aka The Prick (of Conscience, what else ?)

On 10/11/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> 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!
>
> 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/
>