Re: LS 45 minute MOQ

From: Xcto@aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 17 1999 - 08:12:41 GMT


In a message dated 3/16/99 8:42:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org writes:

> Lets weld the hood shut for the next couple of weeks,
>step back and admire the shape and color of the body's contours instead.
>Lets just wash and wax the car. Put the tools away and appraise the
>total value of the vehicle.
>
>Lets start by saying to the one who has never seen a car, "well, its a
> machine that carries people farther and faster than feet or horses can
>go..."

Thanks David, you've brought me out of lurker-dom. I've not said much in a
long time, although I used to be pretty active and I sent out a feeler when
this proposal came out to vote. I like the very analytical structures and
approaches brought out by many, and the summaries presented are mostly
excellent. But it will always have to come back to the problems of SOM and
how the MOQ works better.

The hardest part is recognizing SOM as the root of the problem. It's hard
enough to make people believe that there is a problem let alone a better way
of looking at the world. I think any discussion must provide a bridge from
what they think now to the higher ground of the MOQ. So use all those 10
bullet lists for the explanation of the MOQ, but first give the MOQ some
relevance. You need this first:

EXPLAIN SOM What is the subject/object split? How is it used and misused?
Using proper analogies is especially important here ("truth is an analogy")
Tell your audience to look at something, anything...what did they think of?
Was the thing an object or a subject? Example, my wife looked at me...I asked
did she think of me as a body or think of me as person...she said as a person,
so I told her that she made me into a subject. The relevance is that
scientifically, her ideas had no validity, since it was "subjective" and her
thought depended whole on the observer. If she said that she looked at my
body, it was scientifically valid, because I could be described by verifiable
data. I would go on and say combined with the idea that the only "real"
things are those that are verifiable, me as a person did not really exist; the
concept of me was impermanent, therefore untrue (that idea itself could be
another discussion). Tell that to anyone and see if they thought their
personality was just a figment of their imagination, and you will get...
 

GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES OF SOM PLATYPI. This will help anyone's discussion and
you need some that are significant to your audience. I will ask start a new
program asking for multilevel SOM platypi.
        There are many examples of this to make your audience say "that's not right"
and you naturally follow with illustrations of MOQ that make your audience say
"that makes sense." NOW take your MOQ outlines out. Use your illustrations
to explain your points. Don't worry about the details, just show that the MOQ
supports a better perspective and give the structure of the MOQ as a whole.
        Example, say that the SOM tries to get away with saying that the body
transmits electrical and chemical signals that tells our brain that our body
is feeling discomfort. The MOQ will say that the body recognized the Bad
Quality of a hot stove. It's the simple overlying the complexity.

Is this what you wanted Mary?

xcto
 

MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:39 GMT