Hi Squonk:
P:
> Assuming you live in a free market society, what products do you own that
> you were forced to acquire against your will?
S:
> 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?)
A non-answer to the question.
P:
> What products have you purchased of low value? What planetary
> resources are being dissipated?
S:
> Shaving foam.
> Ozone layer.
Why did you buy it? Someone twist your arm? Cite evidence for
dissipation of the ozone layer and to what effect.
P:
> Just how is the planet being trashed?
S:
> Biodiversity for starters.
Please define "biodiversity." Why important? Are we also part of it?
S:
> > 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?
P:
> What makes you think the MOQ would support such a sacrifice?
S:
> Because that is what maintenance is all about; a balance between stasis and
> dynamism.
Good answer. The problem is to determine what is necessary for
"long term planetary health." There's much debate among experts on
this, as I'm sure you are aware..
P:
> Why do you think the MOQ would support socialism ruled by intellect? How
> do you define "intellect?"
S:
> 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.
Not MOQ. Free markets encourage DQ. Socialism fosters a controlled
economy and is static. Intellect is indeed higher that social patterns, but
SOM intellect is ill equipped to regulate society because within its
framework, nothing is morally wrong.
P:
> 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.
S:
> ...and the depth of your own value traps.
> (See above - reinforcing your societies patterns as consumer for example.)
Please expand on "value traps." What are they and do you have any?
P:
> By using the term "pathological" you accuse the Jewish culture of
> having a biological affliction. Evidence please.
S:
> 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.
A new definition of "pathology." In my dictionary it means "diseased." If
you are going to make up meanings of words, please give notice. That
people marry their own kind and feel closer to their kin than strangers
should come as no great surprise considering the evidence from
nature, both human and evolutionary. I'll bet your "race" does what all
societies do. You probably know the aphorism, "Birds of feather flock
together."
P:
> 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?"
S:
> Are you recommending this book?
> I gather you have read it?
> Are you a Nazi sympathiser?
Yes, I've read it and I recommend it. You'll find parallels to anti-
capitalism, anti-Semitic views. Those who disregard history are likely
to repeat it out of ignorance. I'm not a Nazi sympathizer nor do I think
you are.
S:
> But of course, you are being sarcastic.
> I hope the next instalment, if indeed there is to be such, is rather less
> silly.
Sorry you think my asking you to back up your assertions with evidence
is "silly." Perhaps you hold the postmodern view that it's a fact there are
no facts? As for being sarcastic, no. To prevent a recurrence of the
Third Reich or other totalitarian regime, it seems to me prudent to
examine the intellectual rationale behind it by reading what their
leaders said and wrote. Another "must read" IMO is the Communist
Manifesto.
Platt
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