Hey Bo and all,
Bo, you wrote:
>But from this to start equating Quality with the good of "God in
>Heaven" leaves it wide open up for arguments of the Angus kind.
I see "good" as the social static level interpretation of quality. To "do
good" is to help your brother in need, walk that old lady across the street,
tell the truth, go to church, defend your country, be a hard working fine
upstanding citizen, and basically contribute to the well-being of society.
The social level was "the static level" for so long, though, that the word
has some mystical meaning greater than just social, but because of the
social implications of "good" I think that one should definitely not define
quality as good.
I hope my meaning wasn't misinterpreted by that last part of my post. I
meant it as quality at the root and good and God being two interpretations,
close in meaning, but not quite quality. I did not in any way intend for
people to define quality as good, although I will definitely argue that they
are close.
I actually think that the idea of "good" is a really good way of
introducing someone (who has an open mind) to MOQ, because the word "good"
is accepted, and because you can actually use good in replacement of quality
when dealing with objective things(a good car, scientific theory,
evolutionary adaption)or subjective things(a good painting, wine, movie,
etc.). Just a thought for those of you who want to "light the way" for
others.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of skutvik@online.no
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 4:24 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: MD RE: quality is good
Hi MD.
When reading Angus' messages I thought: "Here's what you get
when starting on the path of equating Quality with "love/goodness"
....of SOM! This discussion necessarily had to revert to the social
level of emotions for a while after the terrorist attacks, but when
starting to climb the Q-ladder it's not enough to stop at SOM-
intellect, but go all the way up to the MoQ-intellect.
No offense, but Angus' message I don't care for commenting, he
has not the least inkling of what the MoQ is about ... but may be a
staunch moqist the moment he understands. From his present
point of view he may even be right in relegating "love" to the limbic
(emotional) brain. A word for Robert D. who, by referring to
Nietszche, started Tanya on the love thread. He wrote:
> Who truly believes that "God is Dead" though? Only Nietzsche
> it would
> seem, for God is very much alive in the minds of even the most
> intellectual people of this world. SOM is a pattern that has no good
> or evil, no morality within it
Right. SOM/Intellect puts both morality and its warrantor God in its
subjective realm.
> yet morality persists. Nietzsche saw
> the death of the social level God, a God which gave the social level
> it's authority and morals, replaced by the intellectual level, a level
> with no authority greater than the many minds that believe in it.
Maybe he had some kind of Phaedrus experience (I tend to believe
so), but did not "return" with any system similar to the MoQ
> He
> predicted the death of the social level, but although weakened, it
> still survives. What he failed to see was the Metaphysics of Quality,
> and how the social level fits into the big picture.
Exactly ...had he just known any Q-levels.
> God has changed
> though, the subject-object definition of it has put it in a box where
> it doesn't belong. Have you ever wondered what the saying "God is
> good" really means? The words are so so close that they could have the
> same root. Could it not be a definition? Quality. If quality is a
> genuine part of reality one would have to be totally blind not to see
> it in the levels other than as "truth", it's intellectual
> interpretation. That's why it persists, because it exists. So
> Nietzsche was both wrong and right, because although the intellectual
> level doesn't require a God, definer of morals, it never really did
> die when the intellectual level took over. And "God has been
> resurrected by MOQ" anyway.
I find this in accordance with my own ideas. Earlier I have pursued
an idea that what took place in Greece (the birth of subject/object
metaphysics) had a counterpart in the Middle East where the many
lesser gods who were responsible for all existence's aspects
(naturally also death and destruction) became a monotheistic
distant creator of an evil world. A theological counterpart to SOM
so to say.
But from this to start equating Quality with the good of "God in
Heaven" leaves it wide open up for arguments of the Angus kind.
Bless him ;-)
Bo
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
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 - 16:01:32 BST