Exactly Angus,
Quality, because it is a noun, is neither defined as in something "only in
your mind" (a judgment call) or some property of objects in the world like
length or height (a good car or a better car). Quality itself is our
experience of reality, or in a sense, we experience the quality of reality.
Think of it this way, pain is the biological level equivalent of low
quality, why does every experience seem a little different when you're in
pain. Even ice cream doesn't taste as good, it's the low quality that we
experience that makes the difference.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Angus Guschwan
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:24 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD RE: quality is good
Last paragraph of LILA says that "good" as a noun is
the closest one sentence for defining MOQ. Pshaw, I'm
even using the acronyms now.
Angus.
--- Rob D <8rjd1@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
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 - 16:01:33 BST