It seems like you tried to introduce into the classroom what I tried
many years ago and I like you ended up with the same results.
I don't think Pirsig mentioned anything on the death penalty or
any form of incarceration. (Besides that of being declared insane)
The fact is that you cannot treat the MOQ like the bible. It is not
a system full of rules. You could say that it is a system of anti-rule.
Why? Because it is stated time and time again that quality cannot
be defined. Also that quality (of that moment) is defined by the individual.
So you saying that the death penalty is an immoral act others would
differ. You must also relies that you evolution as a human being
might be far ahead (or overhead) of your classmates and by the
sound of it your teacher as well. You are not in school to bring
new thoughts and ideas. Most Universities don't even encourage it.
You are in school to have a whole bunch of facts shoved into your
head and then you must give it back in a way that it sounds like
it was your original thinking.
So the point is that if you come up against resistance don't be
surprised. It will happen every time you try to introduce what you
see as quality. Untill it becomes a habit and then you won't
care what others think. Like Pirsig.
> From: HisSheedness@aol.com[SMTP:HisSheedness@aol.com]
> Reply To: email@example.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:48 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: MD md death penalty
> the other day in class i gave a speech about the death penalty and i spent
> about six or seven minutes (the entire thing was twenty, the requirement
> 5-6) giving a very basic explanation of the moq- the four levels, and how
> relates to the death penalty. the main point i tried to stress was the
> of human beings as 'collections of thought,' and therefore inextricably
> to the intellectual level, making society's removal of them an immoral
> society being a lower level of evolution than intellectual. maybe these
> kids' parents are all staunch colonel blimps or something, because when i
> done, everyone attacked me with their belief that they need to see closure
> and that even if the person commiting the crime was a minor, they should
> still be executed and everything. that was all simply emotion though, and
> defended it pretty well, but what i want to know is where exactly does
> emotion and personal conviction tie into the moq? if i can prove
> the folly of the death penalty in contemporary society, (i used plenty of
> statistics about wrongful deaths, the failure of it to reduce crime, the
> prejudicing against minorities, etc.) why do people still cling to their
> views harder than ever? it's not like i expected to change their minds or
> anything, but it seemed like they didnt even think about what i said
> attacking me. how does pirsig define emotional attachment within the moq?
> im new here, and this whole death penalty thing has probably been brought
> before, and if it has been, my apologies.
> ps i got a 69% on my speech because in my introduction i played the
> 'ezekiel 25:17' part from pulp fiction to explain my stance, which my
> wasnt too keen on.
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - email@example.com
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:17 BST