[MD] guidebook/primer

[ian glendinning]

Erratum - In the penultimate para ...

I should have said
"inform the general public"
rather than
"teach the general public"

(Too much baggage with "teach' for this context.)

Ian

On 10/11/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>