| " Most members agreed that the MOQ was
of very little value in dealing with
| real world moral conflicts. Most
dilemmas are same level, and the MOQ is
| notoriously quiet on the issue.
May I beg to differ to this?
That's like saying "all the football
that is played happens between the two
end zones". Where one "end zone" is one
of the Accepted Four Levels (AFL)* and
the other "end zone" is another AFL.
You don't have to look hard to see
someone wearing a football shirt. On
Tuesday. On a street in your town.
Let me tell you how I always thought of
the MoQ in all the years that I had no
one to discuss it with - but it was
always in my mind:
Imagine you knew how to smelt iron
from ore, but you didn't have a single
piece of metal around. The first thing
you'd forge would be the iron
things you needed to forge more iron
things. Does that make sense? A tool
to make more tools. If you were to
plant a "barren" field with seeds and a
crop came and you harvested it the most
important part of that first
crop wouldn't be the crop but the SEEDS
for the next crop. Because the SEEDS
from the first crop would grow more
total future plants than the first crop
had. Without the successful harvest of
the "seeds" all you have is one good
meal and then you starve to death.
Does that make sense?
That's how I think of the MoQ. A tool to
make more tools. A harvest of ideas
which have the abundant seeds inside of
them to grow ever more bounty. If the
seeds aren't planted we will go hungry
again. Those seeds are the "occasional
pearls" or "gems" you were referencing
in your post (not quoted here). Those
SEEDS have to be planted and to be
planted means:
they have to have application in
"real-world" moral dilemmas.
--Soj
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