Greetings,
>Struan wrote:
>> Naughty naughty !! I seem to remember synthesising a
>> definition of SOM that most in the squad
>> (myself not included) accepted.
>
>Indeed you did, I was referring to the (myself not included) part.
Blimey, just think what might happen if I removed my head from the sand and actually thought about
it then!!
>But such ambiguities leaves us open to misunderstandings which
>not seldom leads to harsh words and name calling.
Including side swipes related to heads and sand no doubt.
>Isn't it better
>to get to know all interpretations and contexts, instead of
>seeing just one? Otherwise, everyone will say the same words but
>mean completely different things.
>
Precisely. This is why I introduced the idea of an holistic approach to the MoQ. If more people, "
get to know all interpretations and contexts," of Materialism, Complementarity etc, instead of
seeing just one naive example, then they may see that the oppositional stance of the MoQ is often
misguided and that SOM is, at best, a sop to those who need to feel, 'enlightened.'
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@shellier.freeserve.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST