[MD] A Rally Speech

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Hello Andre

Regarding what you wrote first I know what you mean, after reading Lila's 
Child and all that it seemed somewhat intimidating to join in here, but it 
didn't take too long before I became my usual pompous hot-headed self even 
here =) The truth is that even though I have a great respect for many here 
(like Bodvar and Magnus for example, from reading their input in LC and 
here) it wouldn't do anybody any Good to let that influence anything. If  I 
refrained from criticising Bodvars SOL for example out of respect for 
example I wouldn't be doing him or me any favour at all ( and also I happen 
to agree with Bodvar on many points, so then the ones that I don't agree 
with becomes ever more important to discuss). That's the way I think 
anyway - perhaps just a lot of nonsense, I don't know - but welcome anyway 
=)


> Hello Chris!!
> I agree it takes time for a new idea to settle in and be accepted by a
> larger community...let alone a completely different way of thinking. It
> means letting go of  accepted static patterns ( I like Anthony's "stable"
> better. Static, for me means 'not moving/fixed whereas 'stable' implies a
> 'steadyness' but possible and capable of allowing for change)

Indeed stable patterns are a better term. Static somehow seems to imply evil 
I have noticed.  But the stable patterns is pure and simple everything we 
see around us, and it moves around, and it changes and does all kinds of 
stuff that we need to find out more about, on all levels. That's the way I 
have always seen it. And DQ is of course always there, for the stable 
patterns to perceive in their movement, and be inspired by, but the less we 
say about it (other than it not being some "thing" that moves around and 
"hits" things) the better. I feel.

> How can we make the MoQ more accessable/ how can I, in my own community
> of friends and aquaintances, persuade them of the higher quality that MoQ
> thinking brings.
> I am thinking along the lines of MoQ interpretations/revelations of major
> events that are happening in the world at the moment: the financial 
> crisis,
> clashes of cultures (bombs used on the one side and increasing resentment
> and intolerance from the other side), the predominance of value in this
> world in terms of money (powerful!), the ecological crisis, how to 
> interpret
> 'deceit' and 'lying' from a MoQ perspective (Powell's justification for 
> Iraq
> in front of the entire UN Assembly with powerpoint presentation!!)...a
> manipulation of ....data? The crisis in education ( how do we educate our
> children?), urban renewal/degeneration, the ligitimation crisis (Adorno) 
> of
> the democratic political system etc etc.

Indeed the MOQ holds immense explanatorily power - though not being a 
solution-for-everything-theory, it gives a better perspective, and that's 
more then enough - but for people to be able to understand it they have to 
know the basics, and that's always been the trouble. As well as it was for 
Plato or Aristotle  - or Newton for that matter...

> Maybe I am way out of line here MoQ_ Discuss participants and if I am 
> please
> let me know...it is only a suggestion to perhaps collectively, according 
> to
> each member's interest and expertise, contribute towards a
> stance/interpretation on issues and putting these together as a "position"
> paper ( a la Lila's Child concerning the MoQ as a whole).

My understanding of the matter is that everyone dislike to many of the 
others view too much for this to be possible. Some here don't even agree 
with the fundamentals. But perhaps that isn't relevant, at least not right 
now. I think, that the spreading of the general idea is the most important 
thing still, and for that we have Lila. Bodvar feels, and I agree, that we 
need proper definitions of the levels to be able to seriously promote this 
view - the only problem is that here is where we REALLY differ in opinion.

Any suggestions?  =)