[MD] What's up?

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[David
Yes, absolutely.  I mentioned specifically academia not because of how unimportant it is, but because of how important it is and it's where the MOQ would have great impact.

[Arlo]
I should have opened my post better, I was responding to what I see as a common theme (academy = SOM) and this was an extraction from your post not a reply to your intent. I agree, it is critical S/O lenses are are challenged in the Academy, especially in domains and levels where such thinking dominates, precisely because the Academy is a critical ally here, not an at-once-and-always enemy. 

[David]
>From my lack of academic knowledge I don't know much about these to make a quick comment here. I do of course know James and Dewey however.

[Arlo]
And I am no James or Dewey scholar, but I think there is ample evidence that we should be evaluating (and perhaps synthesizing) non-SOM frameworks. I think in this interdisciplinary way Pirsig's MOQ achieves great strength. 

[David]
Well the MOQ also supports materialism but it does put it in perspective yes.

[Arlo]
I'm not sure how you are contrasting your use of "materialism" against my use of "consumerism", but I think yes what we need is perspective, absolutely.

[David]
I'll be sure to give each of Cultural-historical psychology, emergence theories, semiotics and structurationists a look.

[Arlo]
Do, I think a valuable discussion will emerge :-) as cross-discipline non-SOM frameworks are compared, contrasted and expanded. My two cents, anyway.