Hi everyone,
I can barely keep up with reading the flood of postings, let alone add
my own 2 cents.
There are lots of loose threads that I have left hanging, and I can't
possible do justice to all of them:
1. To Rasheed, Jae and others who were discussing the history of various
religions, I think that each of us can do his own research on how
violent or peace loving each religion has been. I don't think that we
need to argue over the details any more. The one thing I found most
gratifying from the discussion was common ground with Bodvar that
monotheistic religion reinforced the spiritual/physical split that
dominates SOM.
2. To all those discussing Afghanistan, Israel and the Palestinians, I
see little point in pursuing arguments of a political nature. I think
most of us have already made our positions clear.
However, one thing Wim said in the "logical conclusions thread" got me
thinking about a big mistake many MoQers tend to make in elevating the
dynamic without sufficient attention to static restraints (latching).
WIM <Tuesday 13/11/01 14:23:24 GMT>
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0111/0122.html
I don't refuse to SEE existential problems, but I DO try to
refuse to act (and write) according to the social patterns of
values around me and to follow Dynamic Quality instead when
possible. As we are only talking about "patterns" and not about
determination (causation), I do have some freedom (I hope) to do
so. Even if I am only the exception that proves the pattern, I am
safeguarding some maneuvering space for Dynamic Quality. Maybe
non-violence (Gandhian satyagraha) will never be more than that
till the next level provides a new type of static latch for
Dynamic Quality.
I really don't understand how one "follows" dynamic quality. The dynamic
than can be followed is not the real dynamic! What one can do, and I
suppose this is what Wim means, is to BREAK patterns of static quality.
What I find objectionable is Wim's implication, specifically with regard
to social patterns, that one should break the rules purely for the sake
of breaking them. That to me is a misrepresentation of the MoQ. Patterns
become established because they offer predictability. You need to know
the likely outcome of certain behaviour - otherwise how can you choose
how to act? Learning how to act and what to expect is a major element
of childhood, but doesn't necessarily stop there.
While I oppose Wim's extreme stance, I do not hold the extreme opposite
position that patterns should NEVER be broken. I think that patterns
SHOULD be broken when there is good reason to do so - and even when
there is no good reason NOT to do so. When Gandhi marched to the sea to
make salt, in violation of a British monopoly, this was a piece of brave
and clever pattern breaking. Unfortunately, for every Gandhi-style
lawbreaker, there are millions of criminal lawbreakers. One thus needs
to find a correct balance.
The issue of conservatism vs. progress is not restricted to the social.
Biology provides a very good lesson. Evolution proceeds by mutation, but
most mutations that occur are harmful and lost (the mutants don't
survive); very few mutations actually turn out to be beneficial. Biology
organizes itself to be mostly conservative, but to allow a small amount
of dynamic leeway. When times are good, and food is plentiful, more of
the mutations survive, and there is great diversification. When
conditions worsen, the survival becomes like walking a tightrope, and
sideways steps are severely punished. All this is basically what we see
in the fossil record - periods of great diversification punctuated by
episodes of mass extinctions.
Finally, I have a comment to PLATT <Nov 30 2001 - 01:20:08 GMT >
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0111/0320.html
>Here is my vote for the organizing forces of the four levels:
>
>Inorganic: Energy & Entropy
>Biological: Sex & Survival
>Social: Fame & Fortune
>Intellectual: Measurement & Number
>
>Conflicts between levels: The driving force of history.
>
>Penetrating all levels: The evolutionary moral force of Dynamic
Quality.
The organizing force for all levels is SURVIVAL. Patterns that do not
value their own survival, or are not part of a grander pattern that
values their survival . . . tend not to survive. The levels complicate
this simple truth. If you really want to understand patterns, you have
to understand WHY they survive. This is something to be considered when
discussing terrorism, capitalism, religion and even SOM.
(The capitalism topic is on my "to do" list).
Take care everyone,
Jonathan
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 - 16:01:41 BST