Re: LS PROGRAM: MOQ Catechism

From: Mary Wittler (mwittler@geocities.com)
Date: Fri Mar 19 1999 - 14:37:06 GMT


Hi Diana & All,

Sorry for the delay responding, but I've been having back trouble lately
which makes sitting in front of a computer an extremely low quality
experience. I have to do it for my work, but I've been putting off the
personal stuff for a few days.

Diana McPartlin wrote:

> if I was asked to give one next week or even next year I would refuse
> because I don't believe I could do it well enough to do justice to the
> theory. I'm undecided on the question of whether or not it is possible to
> give a presentation on the MOQ, however I'm willing to explore
> possibilities before I dismiss it.

If it's not possible to present the MOQ, then how worthwhile is it as a
philosophy? To understand Christianity should I read the Bible instead
of going to a church? Perhaps. Some people (like us) prefer primary
sources for our information, but others prefer to learn from explanation
and discussion. I think there's much to be said for both kinds of
learning, and no reason to make judgments between the two. To me, it
makes not one whit of difference how one is originally exposed to the
MOQ - what does matter is what one chooses to do after that. As long as
the original exposure is a true representation of even some of its
aspects, then IF a person is interested in that sort of thing they will
pursue it on their own - but they can't pursue it if they've never heard
of it.
>
> And judging from Mary's report it does seem to me that she could have
> benefited from a little more study of the underlying theory before she
> started talking. Then she wouldn't have been caught out by obvious
> questions like why "morality" and "What is dynamic quality".

I didn't mention how I answered these questions when they arose, and I
take a little bit of offense at your condemnation of me. However, from
what I did originally say in my report, I can see how you might have
come to your conclusions. Let me just say that I didn't "feel" caught
out by these questions. I gave the standard MOQ line as an answer in
each case. That is, the myriad definitions of DQ both RMP and the Squad
have made in the past, and my understanding of his use of Quality,
Values, and Morality - which is that he intends to expand the
definitions of these terms to encompass a higher level of abstraction
than they have in our common SOM usage.

Diana, I think your objections are valid and should rightly be expressed
on the Squad, but do you see how you've just thrown a very wet blanket
on the whole discussion? It feels cold and clammy and uncomfortable.
 
>
> And on to Rich's post which lays out the work we have to do before we can
> think about making a proper presentation:
>
> >a) Necessary reevalutation of today's metaphysical and ethical
> > assumptions, problems, conflicts.
> > -what is value? "just" what you like?
> > -relative and absolute "truth" and "value"
> > -various platypi created by our inherited SOM
> > -here I see the biggest difficulty presented by Mary's problem -
> >convincing others of the inadequacy of so many "unconscious" or
> >unstated views we have. (SOM) Most people are not dynamically
> >open to being told that their intellectual coordinates are not
> >the "best" available to them. Why bother with a "meta.. what?"
> >anyways? I was perfectly happy eating fast food living
> >vicariously through my television until you came along!
> >
> >b) Reality = Quality = Morality
> > -ultimately undefinable yet immediately knowable and undeniable
> > -and I think words can certainly draw a picture from which the
> > viewer may infer the underlying essential meaning.
> >
> >c) Manifested & Experienced as Static and Dynamic
> > -give approximate definitions - illustrate underlying meaning
> > -collect clear examples
> >
> >d) Static Levels - boundaries need to be drawn
> > - collect clear examples
> >
> >e) Evolution:
> > i - dependent coexistence
> > ii - static moral conflict and dynamic resolution
> > iii - ethical guidelines for intellectual movement (?)
> >
> >f) Empiricism and Epistemology
> > -"pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality"
> > -quality creates subjective awareness of objects (and subjects)
> > -Hume, Kant, Hindus, Mystics, etc...
>
> Looks excellent to me. I can't wait to get started. But how do I convince
> the rest of the squad that a little bit of hard work, a little delayed
> gratification, will be worth it ten times over in the long run?

Ok Diana, I get the point. Please retract the claws. The MOQ does not
belong to you personally. I understand that you feel strongly about it
and probably resent what you view as a poor representation on my part,
but I doubt anyone would be up to your standards - even yourself.

Let me start by saying that everything mentioned above is valuable and
correct for a completely comprehensive MOQ overview - but impossible to
cover in 45 minutes. A brief presentation can only be designed to whet
the appetite - and a good brief presentation should leave the audience
with more questions than they started with. By doing this, you increase
the chances that some of them will think more deeply about it and pursue
the subject on their own. If I hand out the MOQ on a silver platter
people will think they know everything their is to know about it, file
it away somewhere and never pursue it further. A presentation is not
the same thing as a university course.

The ideas in the MOQ demand contemplation. I did not expect people to
get it right away. I didn't get it right away. Did any of you? I
could have talked all afternoon and only succeeded in muddling the
waters for them. The MOQ is elegant and simple - but only after you
have made peace with it in your mind. My goal was only to spark
interest so that process could begin.

It IS all good,
Mary

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



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