From: Ray Cox (baroquenviolin@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 12:26:12 BST
Thanks for the "Simplminds" post. It said something I
didn't have the courage to say myself. I've been
reading the threads for a few weeks now, and I've even
tried responding to a couple, but for the most part, I
find myself frantically trying to follow threads that
are perhaps too complicated for my grasp. The sheer
amount of names, theories and statements is
exhausting, and if that isn't enough, all of the
names, theories, etc. have their own meaning and
deserve individual attention and thought. A new idea
usually leads to several hours, perhaps days, of
reading and contemplation, by which time the thread
has moved on to other things. The subjects discussed
are naturally complex, but to such an extent that most
beginners feel that they might as well be reading a
foreign language. This is not the fault of the
veteran members who are capable of discussing such
difficult ideas; they do a thorough job, and many
times they provide beginners with new insights and
guide them towards new philosophers which is always
welcomed. Unfortunately, most threads are accompanied
by a fair share of bickering between members that
doesn't really lead anywhere, but is only alienating.
However, it is refreshing to see that I'm not the only
one struggling to keep up with the MoQ discussion
group; and I am encouraged by your questions relating
to the MoQ and would like to respond if possible.
1. I am a school teacher (children from 4 to 13) - I
often get the urge to teach them the MoQ. Would it be
wise? How would you do it?
First, I would say that children would be much more
receptive of the ideas regarding Pirsig's Quality than
adults, quite naturally. One of childrens' most
distinct characteristics on a general level is their
creative tendency (open-mindedness); in addition,
their sense of rationality is not yet fully developed.
It may not be wise to attempt literally teaching
pre-teens the "Metaphysics of Quality" for reasons of
intellectual complexity. But this doesn't mean that a
child is not capable of understanding Quality. Far
from it, children are perhaps the most suitable. I
guess this would imply that to teach students Quality,
it should be done abstractly. By this, I mean to
introduce the idea of quality through your teaching,
rather than as the subject of your teaching.
Another difficulty to teaching the MoQ would be the
conflict that might result between ideas of Quality
and the established, traditional education system.
The vast majority of teaching material and subject
matter is aimed at reinforcing a subject-object
understanding of the world. I can't speak for them,
but I would guess that very few science teachers would
be open to the suggestion that the physical and
biological concepts that they teach are not absolutes,
laws, or definitive principles, but static inorganic
and biological patterns of value. It would take a
massive restructuring of the educational system to
teach subjects like math and science, English and art,
and history on the basis of values.
But maybe it doesn't have to be that complicated.
Teaching Quality to younger students doesn't have to
imply rejecting subject-object concepts outright. It
ultimately depends on your own decisions as a teacher
on whether or not to introduce Quality to your
students, and if so, how to do it. But I would also
admit that one of the reasons ZAMM and Lila are
difficult to understand on the first reading, is that
the reader is often an adult with a highly developed
sense of subject-object understanding.
3. I have great troubles giving grades to creative
works the children make. Can the MoQ be a help
allthough pirsig wouldn't allow it? If yes? Enlighten
me?
I am a classically-trained violinist currently
studying in a music academy in Finland. This question
means a lot to me. Perhaps the MoQ would be capable
of analyzing a student's creative work for your own
benefit, but never to assign a grade. I am not saying
that the current system of judging creative writing,
art, music, etc. is not flawed, it is. It is not very
different from Pirsig's argument against objective
anthropology. But it would undermine the whole
concept of Quality to use it as a grading tool. It
would ultimately boil down to regarding quality as
"what the teacher likes". It is only my opinion, but
the concept of Quality should be seen as an
alternative to the current desire to grade all
creative work.
8. Would it change our feelings about the whole MoQ if
Pirsig appeared to be an ugly child-molesting sigar
smoking bold woman? (like one of Roald Dahls witches)
Dear Lord, I hope not.
10. Is it moral to have an opinion about a President
without living in his country? (looking at Culture A
using the values of Culture B)
Of course. For example, French criticism of US
involvement in Iraq, although dramatic and sometimes
low-handed, was significantly moral because IT WAS
FRENCH. French government was only able to question
American foreign policy and the president, because it
had its own set of values. Without values, what can
you possibly say about a president? Nothing. But
since France maintained a separate set of values
regarding the Iraq crisis, they maintained the ability
and the need to criticise the US. To be blunt, I
would also say that most people have a strong opinion
regarding Hitler, although most of them never lived in
Germany.
Thank you again for the post, and I hope this in some
way, proves useful. I also plan to post questions of
my own, silly and/or orginial, in the future with the
hope of someone, veteran or lurk taking some interest.
Sincerely,
Raymond
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 12:28:10 BST