Wim, all
This is my first posting. I am also somewhat new to
MoQ! So excuse me ahead of time for any blunderings I
may make with regards thereto. I first read ZMM and
Lila about a year ago! I set it on the shelf to
absorb what I had read. I just recently reread both
books. I have a greater appreciation for MoQ the
second time around. After only my second day of
reading postings, however, I am quite
surprised/mystified by the diversity of thinking that
is supposedly derived therefrom (not that there is
anything wrong with diversity). It reminds me more of
a theological debate rather than a philosophical one.
:-) (that's for another thread, though)
Having said that, I would like specifically to respond
to Wim on the issue of 'collective morality':
--- Wim Nusselder <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl> wrote:
> The authority of supra-national institutions to
> grant or deny peoples the
> right to an own state (which Jonathan's history 9/4
> 21:49 +0300 referred to)
> is also an example of collective morality. This too
> has a parallel in
> individual morality: individuals claiming/supporting
> national sovereignty or
> claiming/supporting cosmopolitanism.
> As a matter of 'fact' reality consists of both
> individual and collective
> morality. My MoQ doesn't point to only one of the
> two.
>
Does the collective, in 'fact'/reality, exist at all?
Isn't the collective nothing more than a 'collection'
of individuals? It seems to me that 'collective' is a
synonym for social, albeit in a much more dangerous
fashion (collectives make no allowances for diversity
- squash out the individual/"intellectual"). The
extent that one could speak about a collective is
strictly in statistical terms, i.e. as an observable
pattern of morality, moral behavior, etc. (shades of
'pattern of quality'!) in a group of people. This
organic conception of the social in terms of the
'collective' is not IMMHO anywhere near a description
of reality (or quality for that matter).
Collective behavior (Mob rule?) is dangerous precisely
because it expresses the interest, quality, thinking,
etc. of only some members of the 'collective'
(specifically those in charge). In any event, there
is NEVER 100% accord between the members of any group
of people, even if that 'collective' is comprised of
only two people! In ZMM, Pirsig talks about what the
individual can do (by first working on his/her-self)!
This sentiment is also expressed in Lila (the
elevation of the individual/intellectual). Isn't this
the dyanamic solution we are looking for in the Middle
East?
In defense of 'collective' morality Erin writes,
> We of course want to maximize quality and feel
> empathy for those experiencing less quality
> in their lives but isn't quality something you
> create not demand.
I believe MoQ says that quality creates us, not the
other way around! Perhaps this is why there is such
diversity of ideas coming out of a discussion of MoQ!
Scotlberry
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
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 - 16:02:14 BST