Hi Rog, Platt, Marco, and all;
I agree with Rog (and Wilber):
>Wilber [...] remarks in several places on the internet that he has come to the
conclusion that everybody is right. ... Our models are limited in scope or
>perspective [...] One potential path to knowledge is not to reject what we know,
but to embrace it and find ways to also embrace what others know and >therefore to
develop a broader umbrella of understanding. Another possible path, it seems to me,
is to realize that one interpretation will ALWAYS be >inadequate.
One of the great things I find in the MOQ is that, by classifying beliefs as
"(static) intellectual patterns", it provides a very wise framework to reconsider
our beliefs about beliefs (be they intellectual beliefs or moral beliefs). The two
"wise" paths mentioned by Rog are good examples of this. By the way, one thing that
can be noted about discussions about politics/religion etc. that took place in this
forum is that, in my opinion, on the average they exhibit more open-mindness than is
probably usual in normal human discussions - especially because the will to try to
understand each other's opinions is, in part, boosted by the (meta-)belief that
those who disagree with us are right in their own way. Also, each belief works in a
context of beliefs and cannot be separated from it. So if Rog claims that A is good
and I claim that A is evil, this means no less than the following: in the world as
perceived by Rog through his system of beliefs A *is* good; in the world as
perceived by me through my system of beliefs A *is* evil; we are both right; and the
only purpose of discussion is to try to mutually modify our systems of beliefs to
see if we can thus come to an agreement about A. In such a discussion, possibly, the
agreement on A isn't the most important result we can achieve.
In Rog's words:
>The quest is to find the imperfections in our own view.
(and mine):
>"all we can do is to find a better mistake" (thanks for remembering this, Marco).
Now, I think that Platt's apparent sorrow about the inability of the MOQ to provide
fixed answers misses the point that the MOQ actually states that any fixed answer is
wrong. That the "good" end of every spectrum (good, true, high, ...) is a moving
target by definition - not that much by definition of the target, but by definition
of what we are and what we can intellectually conceive - (limited, discrete,
incomplete, biased, distorted, partial) static patterns. That is the *good* part of
the MOQ, because it accounts for diversity of opinion without actually degenerating
into anything-goes relativism.
The same holds for personal decisions too. The MOQ tells you that whenever you have
found what you *really* want or believe, and you have spelled it out, you are
actually wrong. It points to a path of constant personal evolution by warning you
not to sit satisfied with what you have found, and pushing you outwards. As in
Nietzsche's Zarathustra, you are suggested to endlessly be "the arrow that points to
the other side of the river".
If you are unsatisfied with the consequent "endlessness" of every path, there's just
another step you must take, that is, to understand that "change" is actually the
counterpart of staticness. That means, change is what you need to deal with static
patterns. On the other hand, as the "river" of static patterns flows, it is still a
river; there is something that never changes: the need to change. If there's *one*
truth the MOQ points to, I think it is about the river, and not about the infinite,
individual, partial, discrete, incomplete, ... rivlets and waves that comprise it.
Andrea
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:22 BST