DAN:
> 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.
Avid:
Nobody said that we cannot make this clear to children. Children will be the
first to grasp it. But it doesn't mean to go into structure. It means let
them play with it, experience it....
But here I want criticism, of the structure, you are not a child anymore,
you can criticize.
Dan:
>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:
In Hebrew we have a saying: It suggest that if you find a fault in something
the fault is in you. I encourage you to ask, right now I got something you
don't understand, I am ready to explain. What do you do? You ask me to
change, to suit myself to YOUR taste, I never asked you that. I never asked
you to be polite or kind toward me, but to criticize me harshly but
accurately. I open the comunication, you close it.
An old mystic [Ishaayahu] once told us that the Messiah would be unpalatable
too, what to do, quality of the new is never easy, it reqiers listening to
what you don't consider important, there lies new quality. You don't have to
like me but to judge my writing as arrogant and expect me to change to fit
into your comunication scheme, is preety arrogant too [to say the least].
[old] 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.
Avid:
Notice Dan, Platt, others, I never suggested that Dan or Platt is stupid,
but the argument not to proceed into something which could be relevant
solely because it is too complicated is [immensly] stupid.
If you want it in MoQ lingo, the quality of the experience [stupidity] comes
first. There is no necesity that Dan or Platt must be therefore stupid, to
think that way is to be caught in SOM cage, this is why I want to develop
the alternative.
> Dan:
> How can I try and shut you up? How can anyone?
Avid:
Nobody can and the effort has little quality.
Dan:
As I said, this is
> intellectual arrogance and nothing more.
Avid:
How do you know that? How do you know that it is ALL THERE IS TO IT? I never
claim to FULLY UNDERSTAND ANYTHING, but you do.
PIRSIG:
> 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)
Avid:
Do you think Analysis ends with definitions?
What do you think Pirsig does here? It belongs to analysis. He airs his
dissatisfaction with the Aristotalian definition system as a kind of
metaphysics. His MoQ is a direct result of such criticism. The dumbness is
not in the action, but in the repitition of the action [as in ritual],
without questioning its quality. Quality can vary, when Aristo did it it had
quality, when 19 century teachers do it it is dumb. Dumb is the idea of the
sufficientness of that action of definition.
But Pirsig doesn't stop there. He admits in Lila that a lack of structure
[Romanticism is not enough and constructs MoQ which is exactly to "divide
and subdivide and interrelate and establish
> "principles" and study "methods" " as he criticized Aristo, but the
difference is that Pirsig gets his system to be Quality dependant, not
eternal. So future teachers teaching it will have to recheck the system for
its qualities [and for possible upgrades].
Dan:
> 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.
Avid:
Read the above I never said that. What I do is not intellectualize but
specify, to make it usable to even small children, as a practical tool not
just a hallucination.
Dan:
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! :)
Avid: I didn't label you as anything, I offered you to participate in my
game, you labeled me arrogant [I don't mind because when you care the
criticism gets better], and yes I try to be gentle, this reminder I put
mainly to myself. [at least you smile at the end].
>
>
>
>
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
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