Hello all
About half a year ago, I was trying to explain the MOQ to a friend of mine,
and when trying to discourse the four different levels of static patterns of
value, I used an example that just came to my mind right then, that I hadn't
ever thought about trying to explain with the MOQ and decided that it would
be a good opportunity for me to see how well the MOQ held up dynamically (or
at least see how well I understood it).
So I spontaneously came up with an idea to try to both understand and
explain at the same time. To my recollection, it came out pretty well, but
recently I have returned to the thought and wondered if perhaps I was on
target with my analysis and description. So I will present it to you now,
and ask for your comments about my methodology and final conclusions.
Why did I lie? Why, through much of my life, did I have such a natural (?)
inclination to lie, and why was I so good at it?
I looked at the problem chronologically to begin with. When I was first
born, there were no social patterns and there were no intellectual patterns
for my person. The inorganic patterns and biological patterns had been
established well before my birth, but it seems there were none of the upper
level subjective qualities (this is perhaps a mistake on my part, a
misunderstanding of these qualities. Did I have social patterns? This is one
of my main problems). Growing up, I either didn't have the proper social
contacts needed for development (dynamic breakthroughs) or I did not form
the static latchings necessary to keep these developments. But in some
fashion, my intellect was developed without significant social implications,
and at some time I became aware of the concept of truth, and with it
nontruth.
As my intellect was developed and my social-self was either not developed or
had regressed, I saw the truth-nontruth duality as an opportunity for great
usefulness through the ability to deceive for my individual purposes. To me
the social values are the ones that keep others and their wellbing in mind,
and the intellectual values are the ones that deal with reasoning alone, and
thus when reasoning is above compassion for others, things become very
self-promoting and egotistical. The only reason to do something is to
further yourself. This then was my explanation of why I had such an easy
time lying, why I did it so often, and why I was so good at it.
So I then described to my friend how I was relearning the social aspects of
quality, and statically latching things, and I no longer felt the need to
lie like I did before. The discussion more or less ended and I didn't think
of it for some time.
Until over the past few weeks, when it came back into my mind. If social
values were what was supposed to keep my intellect in check from egotism,
why is intellect a higher static pattern of value than society? By my
argument, I was justified in lying, and even it was the moral thing to do.
Thus I believe my argument is flawed somewhere. My feeling is that it is in
my idea and conception of social patterns of value. So where am I wrong, and
what is the proper definition and description for society?
Brian
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
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 - 16:01:45 BST