Diana wrote . . .
>The March PROGRAM question was
>
>>How does one explain the Metaphysics of Quality in 45 minutes or less to
>>people who have never heard of it? That is, how does one reduce the MOQ to
>>a catechism?
>
>What do you think of the answers so far? Have they all gone over your head?
>Or is a presentation/catechism on the MOQ such a stupid idea that you won't
>lower yourself to participate?
I don't think that a presentation on the MoQ is a stupid idea. I think that
Mary is doing a fine thing. Whatever works to get the word out. I don't
like public speaking myself, but I think it's great that at least someone
on the list is willing to try.
I do have trouble with referring to this effort as a "catechism", because
of my association of that word with mindless, rote repetition. Clearly
that's not what Mary is aiming for. And apologies to any Catholics on
the list, because I know that isn't what a catechism is supposed to be,
but that is the colloquial, secular usage as I understand it, and as RMP
uses it.
WRT my own silence on the topic before yesterday, it stems from 2 things:
1) my own dislike of public speaking; and 2) the (to me) daunting task of
preparing an _oral_ presentation to an uninitiated public that is worthy
of comparison w/RMP's own _written_ one. Really we've only begun to scratch
the surface of what's possible to consider.
>Have you wanted to join in but haven't found
>the time?
This is a consideration. I don't have the time or inclination to go into
this thing as deeply or at such length as some folks. And as much as I
enjoy reading and writing, there's only so much time for it in my day.
I have real work to do; I have to go outside and play.
Also, wordsmithing is more work for some than for others. Probably I am
more toward the "more work" end of that spectrum, as I edit my stuff like
a fiend before I send it out. With other folks, it may flow more naturally.
>Have you already said
>something and nobody paid any attention?
Yes, and this has happened more than once in MD, too. I try not to take it
personally; more as an indicator of the relevance of what I'm saying to
the concerns of the other list members. I don't expect that everyone
values the same aspects of ZMM/Lila/MoQ/RMP that I do. Figuring out what
the other members value without them necessarily having to explicitly
say is part of the interest for me.
I'd hate to see this turn into group therapy, where we feel obliged to
respond coherently to anything anybody says, regardless of its relevance
or level of insight, just so no one feels "rejected".
Some members' apparent familiarity and frequent exchanges w/each other
may be a little offputting to current lurkers, who may feel like they
would be breaking into an "in" group if they said anything.
But I would hate to set up style guidelines for posts that discouraged
that conversational style, because it's natural for us to become familiar
with each other over time, and address each other as such. Plus we all
have the interest in the MoQ in common or we wouldn't be on the list,
right?
My own experience is that it took 6 wks to 2 months of lurking, figuring
out where people were coming from, before I felt comfortable jumping in.
You recall I expressed doubt about being able to meet the frequency-of-
post guideline before I joined; this is where that was coming from. It
may take others longer to feel comfortable; I don't know where I stand
in the overall distribution, but I can't believe I'm the shyest one on
the list by any means.
I don't know that there's any systemic way to balance things out between
garrolous, familiar old-timers and terse, timid, newcomers. I don't know
that the new LS has been around long enough for us to really say whether
there's even a need for this. And I guess I'm not certain that the
existing frequency-of-post guideline can accomplish it. I guess I'd say
that when the new folks are ready to dance, we can encourage them; but
let's not yank them out of their seats before then.
LS is definitely a more civil environment than MD, and more focused. So
far there's not such a bad balance between the social and intellectual
aspects; and we definitely do need both, and in balance. The balance on
MD has been less satisfactory in recent memory, but it's quieted down for
the present, and I still appreciate its free-ranging aspect.
>The Lila Squad is not a competition, it's a creation.
A jewel of a thought. Let's all keep this in mind, and conduct ourselves
accordingly.
Jeff
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:39 GMT