Avid:
Thank you Dan to share this too. The explanation to small children goes to
how to use things [I can give you such simple explanation] but not regarding
to the structure or construction of things. Will you drive a car constructed
by children [average non genius children]?
I didn't think so.
What I take from your remark Dan is that my explanation was too complex, so
if it is interesting to you [because of the subject or because you don't
like too complicated for your understanding to exist] I suggest you break it
down to questions that will simplify the digestion of the data contained [as
you do with food].
Hi Avid
We miss much meaning in words by attempting to obfuscate issues in
complexities. That's my concern. If we cannot teach children of Quality then
we miss our mark. I am not talking here about kids building cars or rockets
to go into space. That will all come later. I detect notes of intellectual
arrogance in your writings that are unpalatable to me so I will defer
questioning your explanation until such time as your understanding expands
to allow such questioning.
Avid:
I believe that there is no mystical thread yet [Platt Dan and co. you are
free to establish it]. You are free also to criticize me, but don't try to
shut me up, for the [stupid] reason it is far too complicated.
Dan:
How can I try and shut you up? How can anyone? As I said, this is
intellectual arrogance and nothing more. Let's look at what Pirsig says
about this:
"Between the lines Phædrus read no doubts, no sense of awe,
only the eternal smugness of the professional academician.
Did Aristotle really think his students would be better
rhetoricians for having learned all these endless names and
relationships? And if not, did he really think he was
teaching rhetoric? Phædrus thought that he really did. There
was nothing in his style to indicate that Aristotle was ever
one to doubt Aristotle. Phædrus saw Aristotle as
tremendously satisfied with this neat little stunt of naming
and classifying everything. His world began and ended with
this stunt. The reason why, if he were not more than two
thousand years dead, he would have gladly rubbed him out is
that he saw him as a PROTOTYPE for the many millions of
self-satisfied and truly ignorant teachers throughout
history who have smugly and callously killed the creative
spirit of their students with this dumb ritual of analysis,
this blind, rote, eternal naming of things. Walk into any of
a hundred thousand classrooms today and hear the teachers
divide and subdivide and interrelate and establish
"principles" and study "methods" and what you will hear is
the ghost of Aristotle speaking down through the
centuries...the desiccating lifeless voice of dualistic
reason." (ZMM)
So because you decide MOQ can be intellectualized into highly complex static
quality patterns of value, those of us who object to this style of treatment
are automatically [stupid] and more than likely of moronic IQs. Hmmm...
well, if I am to be labeled as such, at least I am in good company. And oh,
BTW, don't forget to be gentle! :)
Dan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:10 BST