Hello all,
I'm a new reader to MOQ site and have been content to simply read and get a
feel for the type of debate that goes on here until I feel confident enough
to contribute properly. I'll break silence briefly on the procedural
question of slow reading as a concept for MF.
Even with the problems that have been encountered the idea of slow reading
would seem to make great sense, to examine carefully and systematically the
ideas of RP with people's intelligent commentary. As a 'newbie' this would
provide an excellent way to get into the meat of Lila.
It would seem to me that disagreement as to interpretation would be
inevitable for any non-trivial writing of any length. These disagreements
could be valuable if considered with an open mind as they challenge rigid
preconceptions and force us to build new concepts or to find stronger
arguments to support our existing beliefs but it seems unlikely that a
consensus on the points raised would be unanimously agreed at the end of
every chapter. People filter the experience of the book through their
ideas, their emotions and their personality to form their own unique
experience. Sharing that experience with others will hopefully enrich it
but not necessary result in the same common experience for all.
David's 'We should've had 4 insights, 3 epiphanies and 19 wows by now' is
probably over optimistic for the opening chapters of a book which is
concerned mainly with establishing the characters and atmosphere more than
exploring the book's main philosophical ideas (as Diana said). In spite of
this I found some of the contributions interesting even if some people felt
a lack of focus. Perhaps a clearly defined expectation and code of conduct
would help people to get more out of the discussion, it would be a shame if
people of D.B.'s quality felt the project to be 'a waste of time' and didn't
contribute. One factor of David's postings is his consistent practice of
quoting key passages, making direct observations from the text and only then
going on to form an interpretation. This at least ensures that he is
actually discussing the book's content and not ideas with a tenuous
connection.
I'd be interested to follow this thing further and subscribe to a separate
slow reading list if one is formed. I would tend to agree with Diana that
going back to chapter one could be something of a 'gumption trap' if people
simply find themselves reiterating the posts of this month or tackling
material from further on in the book.
Lee Lawrence
e-mail: leel@aspin.co.uk
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST