In a message dated 4/13/02 2:34:07 AM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD ignorance and the rule of emotion
Date: 4/13/02 2:34:07 AM GMT Daylight Time
From: pholden@sc.rr.com (Platt Holden)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hi Squonk:
> Hi Platt,
> Trading is a social activity.
> There is a difference between what people need and what they want.
> In capitalist societies peoples are coerced into feeling they want that
> which they do not need.
Assuming you live in a free market society, what products do you own
that you were forced to acquire against your will?
Hi Platt,
You are the result of your culture.
Your culture is one of consumerism.
Therefore you consume.
In consuming you do not exert your will; you reinforce the patterns of your
culture.
This makes you vulnerable to media manipulation of your social values and may
limit your freedom NOT to consume.
(Try buying nothing for a month?)
> Much of that which a consumerists society generates is of low
> value and a dissipation of planetary resources.
What products have you purchased of low value? What planetary
resources are being dissipated?
Shaving foam.
Ozone layer.
>That is the free market for
> you; freedom to trash the planet with increasing vigour and resolution that
> what one is doing is moral.
Just how is the planet being trashed?
Biodiversity for starters.
> An intellectual stance recognises that society can become out of
>control
> and is not inherently free in the sense capitalists feel it is or should
> be. A trading, (no pun intended) of freedom for long term planetary health
> is a sacrifice i feel the MOQ would support?
What makes you think the MOQ would support such a sacrifice?
Because that is what maintenance is all about; a balance between stasis and
dynamism.
> Socialist structures are rather like Christianity; great idea but people
> are not that benevolent. In a modified form, socialism is exactly what the
> MOQ would advocate; society ruled by intellect for the benefit of all
> humanity.
Why do you think the MOQ would support socialism ruled by intellect?
How do you define "intellect?"
It is a tenet of the MOQ that higher value levels regulate those levels
immediately below them.
I define intellect as that which is of higher quality than social patterns of
value.
> What you appear to be surprised by are those who think for themselves and
> do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to quote a static text which
> embodies dynamic value.
It's fine to think for yourself. But to convince anyone else that your views
are worthwhile, you must present evidence. That's the reason for my
questions. Maybe I can learn something from you. Then again, maybe
not. It all depends on the quality of the facts you present to back up your
assertions.
...and the depth of your own value traps.
(See above - reinforcing your societies patterns as consumer for example.)
> Fundamental jewish religion is more akin to Buddhism than a religion as
> such, but rather like Catholicism, the initial text has been interpreted in
> a socially reinforcing manner. Much religious teaching is little more than
> a social carrot and stick job. In my view, Jewish culture is pathologically
> static. Individual Jews may be just, or more intellectually valuable as,
> you, i or indeed anyone quite naturally; because intellectual patterns of
> value have little relation to social values.
By using the term "pathological" you accuse the Jewish culture of
having a biological affliction. Evidence please.
The pathological is that which tends towards lower value.
Therefore social values may be pathological if they tend towards biological
patterns.
The social reinforcement of a superior race-gene may be such a pathology
within a global village of divergent social patterns.
P quoting Hitler:
> "Jewish reactionary warmongers in the capitalistic democracies
> started the war."
>
> From Hitler's New Year's Proclamation of 1940 to the German people. I will
> leave it to you, dear reader, to draw your own conclusions.
S:
> Leaving 'dear readers' to draw their own conclusions was very far from
> Hitler's agenda when he made inflammatory speeches.
What's your point?
My point is: If you have something to say Platt, then say it. Leaving dear
readers to draw there own conclusions may result in ambiguity and
misunderstanding.
>I should hope you do
> not feel there are those in this forum who are in the habit of making
> inflammatory speeches, or members who are incapable of interpreting speech
> intellectually and without emotional bias?
Huh? I feel that members of this forum are perfectly capable of
interpreting Hitler's pronouncement on their own without being told
what to think. Incidentally, have you read "Mein Kampf?"
Platt
>>
Are you recommending this book?
I gather you have read it?
Are you a Nazi sympathiser?
But of course, you are being sarcastic.
I hope the next instalment, if indeed there is to be such, is rather less
silly.
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:02:10 BST