Try to read my post more carefully, maybe you'll be more graceful, or maybe
try to write in Hebrew and see how you come across
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
----- Original Message -----
From: dan glover <glove@indianvalley.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Dienstag, 31. August 1999 19:52
Subject: MD Art and the MOQ
> 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
>
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 - 16:03:11 BST