At 1:43 AM +0000 1/7/00, Horse wrote:
>> When JC says that 'Good is the direction ON the line', it implies that
>> there is a point on the line from where the direction is marked. I take
>>this as
>> the perspective that always has to be defined when one wants to examine
>> the Good or IOW determine the direction of the Good.
>
>I'm still a bit unsure of JC's take on Morality as a continuum and Good as
>a direction.To me
>this implies a lack of dimensionality and increased restrictiveness.
>Perhaps JC would
>expand on this idea and/or reference the original post from which this
>idea came.
Be glad to. I can't recall an original post from which this was derived,
it was more along the lines of my own need to understand how 'morality'
could be the empirical underlayment of everything. So I came up with an
idea that perhaps it was analogous to time.
Analogy of analogys. Oh boy.
We consider time to be part of the universe - everything has duration and
goes from NOW to LATER - that is, it's directional. We find it easy to
conceptualize time as a line, and "later" as a direction on the line.
So where does Quality fit into our concept of the space-time continuum?
Perhaps it would be more usefull to call it, the "space-time-moral
continuum".
That's basic MoQ. I'm just trying to make a semantic distinction. I wanted
to distinguish "morality" from "good" in the same way that "time" is
distinguished from "later". Time is a dimensional concept while later is a
direction in that dimension. Morality is the underlying dimensional
structure of the universe and Good is a direction on that line. The cosmos
moves toward good in the dimension of morality in an analogous way that it
moves in toward "later" in the dimension of time.
This may seem a bit simplistic. But it helps me frame real questions
about what is good and what is not good from the context of where I'm
standing right now. Good can never be fully achieved or defined, but
anywhere you are on the line of morality, there is a good direction, and a
bad direction. And while you can always choose the good, you can't ever
fully define it or contain it. Like lightspeed, it recedes before you as
you approach it. Anytime you pick a point ON the line of morality and
define it as ultimate morality, you're stuck in a truth trap - a dogma.
relative to something REAL as rocks and accessible to every single "object"
in the cosmos.
Does this clear it up?
jc
PS: Sure did enjoy David's Million Dollar Missive
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 - 16:00:36 BST