From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 04:05:19 GMT
Hi all,
There are 5 topic suggestions to choose from this month. As always if there
is not a clear winner - i.e. a tie - I'll select those that have tied and
ask for you to re-vote.
You have just under three days to send in your vote (no extensions).
There is only 1 vote per member so please don't be voting for more than 1
topic.
I will not be forwarding the vote posts to the list but will post the final
results around 10pm (NY time) on Wednesday, so don't get worried that your
post hasn't made it. I shall show all the voters on the CALL FOR VOTES final
results so if you don't see your name on it email me then.
Any topic that is not used will be added to a page of potential topics which
can be re-used at a later date if you so desire.
Here's the list of topics on which to vote.
DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR February 2004
==================================
1) Is it THE MoQ we are discussing (i.e. as meant by Pirsig) or are we
(should we be) discussing the merits of our various versions (with Pirsig's
writings expressing only one version or even a version that develops in
time)? --- Wim Nusselder
2) Are the patterns of one who well understands music notation aesthetically
more beautiful than one who does not well understand music notation? (One
may think of this question in terms of ability to improvise and ability to
play notated score.) --- Mark Maxwell
3) Is the romantic/classic split from the ZMM model (classic/romantic)
really separate from the MoQ? Or are these just different ways of cutting up
the same pie? --- Amilcar Kabral
4) "Seen in the light of the MOQ can the value that ZAMM treats in
connection with the Sophists and Ancient Greece's "Aretê" be given a
position in the static hierarchy?" --- Bo Skutvik
5) "Can we detect any discrepancies between these two quotes?"
Pirsig in ZMM chapter 20:
"Phaedrus remembered Hegel had been regarded as a bridge between Western and
Oriental philosophy. The Vedanta of the Hindus, the Way of the Taoists, even
the Buddha had been described as an absolute monism similar to Hegel's
philosophy. Phaedrus doubted at the time, however, whether mystical Ones and
metaphysical monisms were introconvertable since mystical Ones follow no
rules and metaphysical monisms do. His Quality was a metaphysical entity,
not a mystic one. Or was it? What was the difference?"
Pirsig in Lila chapter 30:
"The MOQ associates religious mysticism with Dynamic Quality but it would
certainly be a mistake to think that the MOQ endorses the static beliefs of
any particular religious sect. Phaedrus thought sectarian religion was a
static social fallout of DQ and that while some sects had fallen less than
others, none of them told the whole truth."
"He thought about how once this integration occurs and DQ is identified with
religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to what
Dynamic Quality is. A lot of this relgious mysticism is just low-grade
"yelping about God" of course, but if you search for the sources of it and
don't take the yelps too literally a lot of interesting things turn up."
--- David Buchanan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 04:08:53 GMT