From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 15:30:39 BST
Hi Gert-Jan,
I sympathise with your perspective. We're hoping to get the MF group back up and running before too
long so that some of the more involved debates have a more suitable home. In the meantime, the best
way to make sure the MD group isn't too intimidating is to do exactly what you've done - start up a
thread about your own concerns. On which topic, my two pennies:
> There are some subjects that made me wonder, where I need your opinions.
>
> 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?
Start from an understanding of 'good and bad' or even 'better and worse'. I wouldn't worry too much
about the levels at the early ages - that could probably come in a bit later on - but the key idea
that value is the primary "stuff" from which all else flows - and that there is better and worse -
should be teachable, surely? (you might even want to call it 'God'..... ;o)
> 2. I regularly find myself trying to explain the moq to others (friends
> during beer) How do you do it? What do you tell them?
Don't know. Haven't really tried it.
> 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 would be in favour - but then I think there are (or should be) agreed standards within a
discipline, whatever it is. So a discipline needs to be learned before it can be experimented with
creatively and freely. (The student follows the rules. The rebel breaks the rules - but is still
defined by them. The creative transcend the rules)
> 4. Do some of you try to implement the MoQ into psychology (or ectually the
> other way around that is)?
Only in an informal way - I like to pick out social level thinking (or at least what seems so to me,
from my great vantage point of knowing everything ;-) There are some people here who at one point
were looking at relating the MoQ to Eriksson, Maslow etc. The Wilber fans might have more to say on
that - not being one I can't really comment.
> 5. If philosophy is of high intellectual quality, why get children?
Because the higher levels do not negate the lower, they depend upon them for their existence. If we
were so caught up in intellectual rapture that we ceased to eat, the intellectual rapture would
cease. I would say that we need to flourish on all the levels at once (see my 'eudaimonic' paper on
the website), only that there needs to be a harmony around the highest Quality.
> 6. Is a religion a social pattern of values? And if these patterns are not
> of high quality anymore in a culture, why teach children that religion
> anyway?
This, as you would expect, is a highly contentious question! It all depends on what you mean by
'religion'.... the people who gather and do things together on a Sunday morning (or Friday or
Saturday or whenever?). That's pretty social. The mystic off pursuing their vision of God? Pretty
dynamic really. The theologian closeted in the ivory tower debating whether Aquinas or Ockham was
the more profound thinker - that's fourth level IMHO.
As for teaching the children, I would go back to what I said above - you can't have the highest
levels without the ones below flourishing as well. I see story as the 'spine' of the third level (in
both metaphysical 'story' and religious 'story' terms) - so I don't think you can get away without
telling children stories which make sense of the world. We just have to thrash out which stories
have the highest Quality.
> 7. Why is a policeman allowed to hit a hooligan, but is a teacher not
> allowed to hit a kid that the teacher can't reach intellectually or social?
> And why was it allowed in the old days? What should a teacher do, if he
> doesn't want to use this biological jungle-language?
I think this is what Pirsig talks about in Lila, re the policeman and soldier? The issue is: does
society ultimately depend upon violence to exist? The MoQ says yes.
> 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)
Shouldn't, but it probably would.
> 8. When did the intellecual level started - The old greek - the
> renaissance - the sixties ?
Again - this is greatly debated. I think there wasn't a clear cut start point. In particular I think
it depends upon a certain degree of economic and social sophistication to be held in place. Most
people would think Athens had an intellectual life I think.
> 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)
Yes. To say otherwise is to say that there is no universal scale of values - which I think the MoQ
would deny (even if it would also say that anyone who claims authoritatively 'I have found the
TRUTH' etc should be treated with suspicion..)
> 11. Can I tell you all Gandi was a great guy using my $2000,- computer?
I think so. Gandhi wanted to affirm the values of his culture, and he was quite happy to have the
dhoti and spinning wheel. I think there is a nihilistic rejection of wealth in some counter-cultural
programmes, which (IMHO) Gandhi wouldn't have bought into. He didn't like greed, of course, but I'm
not sure that 'voluntary simplicity' necessarily rejects the computer age. Is your computer a tool
or a toy? Does your use of it bring Quality into your life?
Thanks for the questions.
Sam
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 - 15:29:36 BST