I vote number 6
maybe there is one composition applyable on all four levels
Jaap
----- Original Message -----
From: <diana@hongkong.com>
To: <moq_focus@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 3:26 AM
Subject: MF CALL FOR VOTES - March 2000
> Hi everyone
>
> It's ~2 days before the end of the month, time to start voting on the
> topic suggestions for next month. You may post your votes between now
> and midnight GMT 29 February.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> Please use the same subject line as this post when you submit your vote.
>
> Please vote for only one of the topics listed below.
>
>
> 1
> In the event of an inter-level conflict is it ALWAYS the case that the
> higher level of Value, as defined in the MOQ, has moral superiority? Are
> there instances where this is not the case and how are they resolved? How
is
> it possible to recognize and/or resolve an intra-level moral conflict?
> (Marco)
>
>
> 2
> Is this static-dynamic split merely an epistemic convenience that we make
> arbitrarily or is it an ontological reality, transcending our thoughts and
> intellectual description of it?
> (Marco)
>
>
> 3
> What would our world look like today if the Sophists had won the debate
> over the primacy of Truth over Quality?
> (Marco)
>
>
> 4
> I have been busy the past few months putting together a book called
> 'Lila's Child' which chronicles the first months of TLS discussion
> group, from August 1997 to April 1998.
> The manuscript is now nearing completion and I would like to invite the
> focus group to critique 'Lila's Child' chapter by chapter. Specifically
> I am looking for suggestions to improve the flow of dialogue and help in
> finding any redundancies, misspelling and grammatical errors that I
> might have missed.
> (Dan Glover)
>
>
> 5
> (Original author Philip Wigg)
> 'Lila' was described in one it's reviews as 'having little to add but more
dull taxonomy'. Given
> that trying to solve moral dilemmas using MOQ seems to create as much
debate and
> confusion as not using MOQ and there also seems to be considerable
confusion as to the
> interpretion of Pirsig's levels, is this a fair criticism?
> (Horse)
>
>
> 6
> (Original author Denis Poisson)
> To further explore the Social and Intelectual Levels in terms of how they
work and their
> composition. Also, if DNA is the "machine code" or interface between the
inorganic and the
> biological levels, what form does the interface between the Biological and
the Social levels
> take and similarly the interface between the Social and the Intellectual
levels.
> (Horse)
>
>
> 7
> (Original author Kevin Sanchez)
> How would Pirsig unite modernity and postmodernity. Chomsky advocates
modernity
> claiming we need morality to legitimize our actions and justice is the
highest ideal of
> society. Foucault advocates postmodernity claiming that despite our need
of it,
> morality doesn't exists and that society defines its highest ideal as it
wishes. It seems
> Pirsig can't appease the moderns because of his reliance on experience
instead of logic and
> he can't appease the postmoderns because of his acceptance of a universal
morality
> instead of particular morality.
> (Horse)
>
>
> 8
> Can the MoQ be separated from LILA??? If so, how do we do it?
> If not, how can this group ever really achieve anything more substantial
> than literary criticism?
> (Richard Budd)
>
>
> 9
> Rather than pose a question, I'd like to focus on the original work by
> simply re-reading it together, with fresh eyes.
> And this proposal for March is designed as an experiment to see if we
want
> to cover the entire book together. If we decide to go ahead after one
month
> of experimentation, the entire re-reading project would take about a year.
> Perhaps you saw the conversations about all this in the other forum?
Anyway,
> there are 36 chapters in Lila and 12 months in a year. Obviously, that
works
> out to 3 chapters per month.
> So I propose that we experiment with this method for our March
discussion.
> We'll discuss the first three chapters. We'll work out the details as we
go
> along, but the main idea is to re-read big chunks of the book so that we
can
> see the context of all our favorite quotes and examples. We'll look at the
> literary aspects to see how they enhance, support or clarify the ideas
being
> presented. All the while we are just asking one main question; What is
> Pirsig saying? What does it mean?
> I don't even recall what issues are covered in the first three
chapters. And
> it doesn't really matter. The idea is to go through the MOQ in the way
> Pirsig intended, starting on page one and then page 2, etc. I think
> simplicity is the greatest feature of this plan. Let's read it together
and
> listen carefully to the main man. Not to agree or disagree even, just to
> really, really hear what he's saying. Lets get some pure Pirsig going.
Let's
> look again with fresh eyes. Let's look at Pirsig's words in their full
> context. What do you say?
> (David Buchanan)
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST