MD "practical" means what?

From: Mari (
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 17:15:08 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "MD Rocket science for dummies"

    David and all,

          While reading the post below and at times when reading other posts
    where the word
    "practical" is used, i notice that something is bothering me about the
    *attitude* *reasons* *positions* *explainations* and so on....... that are
    used when it comes to answering a question that i raised on several
    occasions. i'm fairly sure it may have been my first question to the MoQdg.
    How can we move from talking about it to using it. "It" being the MoQ

    Maybe saying
    "something is bothering me" and not taking the time to communicate what and
    why, adds to the problem. When i think of the *reasons* that are offered for
    not taking the question and moving it to a discussion of what a *practical
    application* of the MoQ philosophy would look like on a social level; i
    think of what is mentioned below about Hitler: " There are different kinds
    of satisfaction and some of
    them are moral nightmres. The Holocaust produced a satisfaction among Nazis.
    That was quality for them. They considered it to be practical."
    And of all the MoQers who answered my query about a practical application of
    the MoQ, i think of Platt's response echoing this exact fear stands out
    But that is not a good enough answer for me as illustrated in what David
    said in his words and Pirsig said in his own words.
    i do not think i am taking out of context ( and if you think i am please
    point it out ) what Pirsig wrote below and as follows: "But the MOQ states
    that practicality is a SOCIAL
    pattern of good." What else could this mean besides: PUT IT TO GOOD USE?

    While driving down the road these MoQ conversations run around in my head.
    This happened when i read ZMM and Lila as well as other stimulating, thought
    provoking works. i took notes and underlined sentences, words, and
    paragraphs and applied in varying degrees the MoQ philosophy. At times i
    engaged others noticing the benefits of having other(s) working with the
    same practical application, intention and mind set.

    When i discovered that there was a group of people who's common interest was
    MoQ i expected that there would be an ongoing conversation(s) and refinments
    (changes) while at the same time applying the MoQ to ( i'm going to use the
    word "CAUSES" thinking that there might be other, betters, best word(s) )
    Although i believe that MoQ is used in practical ways by MoQers on an
    individule level which might rricke down and out into the community at
    large; i can't think of a "thing" that is in motion; stated and implimented
    by the MoQ group or by anyone else for that matter including Mr P himself.
    (again if i am blind to something please enlighten me)

    It occured to me that one thing that would have to be sorted out in order to
    impliment a plan would be to figure out what every member was "best" at. (
    In Stranger in a Strangeland the team that went to Mars had not only one
    specialty but several so the team was greater than the sum of it's parts) It
    just makes sense to use those who are best Qualified to do what they do
    best. (There will always be a need for checks and balances)
    In the several months here in the MoQdg i don't know what anyones specialty
    is. And then theres the item that *WE* would work on....what could that be?
    Where/what might we experiment on something to see if it can work. Nothing
    has ever been suggested as far as i know.

    So once again: Why are "WE" not working together to implement something
    *practical* beside a conversation in a vacuum? If nothing else why not
    through a few possibilities into the discussion?


    ( from the Gardner on Pragmatism post ) DMB says:
    Right. Its true. There's nothing to prevent people from distorting ideas for
    their own twisted purposes. And to criticize an idea just because its not
    immune to such abuse is a totally invalid criticism. I couldn't agree more.
    But I think the problem with pragmatism is that no such distortion is needed
    for it to result in a moral nightmare. I think this is what Pirsig is saying
    about James' brand of Pragmatism. He's saying that genuine, undistorted and
    unpolluted pragmatism can lead to these moral nightmares, not by abusing it
    but simply using it as it really is. And he didn't see any way to stop it
    from doing so. On the other hand, aside from wild distortions, the MOQ's
    brand of pragmatism DOES have a way to prevent this problem.

    What Phaedrus saw was that the MOQ avoided this attack by making it clear
    that the good to which truth is subordinate is intellectual and DQ, not
    practicality. The misunderstanding of James occurred because there was no
    clear intellectual framework for distinguishing social quality from
    intellectual and Dynamic Quality, and in his Victorian lifetime they were
    monstroously confused. But the MOQ states that practicality is a SOCIAL
    pattern of good. It is immoral for truth to be subordinated to social values
    since that is a lower form of evolution devouring a higher one.
    The idea that satisfaction alone is the test of anything is very dangerous,
    according to the MOQ. There are different kinds of satisfaction and some of
    them are moral nightmres. The Holocaust produced a satisfaction among Nazis.
    That was quality for them. They considered it to be practical. But it was a
    quality dictated by low level static social and biological patterns whose
    overall purpose was to retard the evolution of truth and DQ. James would
    probably have been horrified to find that Nazis could use his pragmatism
    just as freely as anyone else, but Phaedrus didn't see anything that would
    prevent it. But he thought that the MOQ's classification of static patterns
    of good prevents this kind of debasement.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 17:17:44 GMT