From: Monkeys' tail or (elkeaapheefteen@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 09:47:06 BST
Steve,
we have not been too polite, it's just so many newbies come and go that
people here are getting a bit fatigue of explaining everything over and over
again. Besides this there is not too much consensus about some issues you
mention, everybody has his or her own MOQ and that's fine but does not
always contribute to the transparancy of the MOQ as a whole. Besides this
some people are way too intellectual to spend their time on explaining the
MOQ, they think it is not worth too speak about anything what is not of
their own interest or what they give a high value classification. I will
give you my opinion for what it is worth(I am not an MOQ expert and I
willingly admit that I cannot accept or understand some of the MOQ
premisses); I agree about what you are saying of the organic and social
level.
You wrote further:
IV. Societies can also be attacked "from above" as a fourth level of
>evolution is represented by intellect. A morality that values individual
>humans over society that exists to break the societal constraints on
>freedom. To be honest, I don't really understand what is meant by this
>intellectual level. I understand that intellectual morality would include
>rights, but I don't know what else its morality includes and I don't know
>what Pirsig means by intellect.
I believe the intellectual level in a non-technical sense, is a level where
one accepts himself as an individual and moral authority. It means IMO that
an individual has broken free(correction;is breaking free) from the
constraints of the social level, which means an individual accepts his own
authority. This seems to go to a world of perspectives and that there is no
common good, but I believe there is, DQ. As the progression of the levels in
many situations progress to the same goal. More practical, take for instance
secularisation which is a shift from a social to intellectual level
construction which means that the authority of 'pragmatic' societal
decisions are not longer based on what God says but what a voice inside
individuals say and what they have agreed on. It might not be a fully
intellectual level construction, but at least it is intellectually driven
and going towards DQ rather than obedience to dogmas as in(most) religions.
But as there is one thing most of us agree on it is; I could be wrong!
>To summarize how I think these levels work...
>Complete freedom is the ultimate good, my ultimate goal, and my most
>natural
>desire. I become free of an inorganic immobile state of being through my
>biological aspect of existence. I become free of the bonds imposed by my
>biological needs through the social aspect of my existence. I become free
>of the bonds imposed by society through the intellectual aspect of my
>existence.
>
>I am never made completely free of the bonds of the previous levels through
>the next levels while new restrictions on freedom are always introduced.
>In a paradoxical way, with the addition of each new level, there is less
>freedom. Freedom actually gets harder and harder to attain through this
>evolutionary "progress." In a way, rocks have complete biological, social,
>and intellectual freedom. They have all the food, shelter, and rights they
>need. They just donšt have inorganic freedom.
I think you are wrong here IMO, 'freedom' in MOQ terms is not what is needed
on a certain level, but what has the greatest ability(or receptiveness) to
change. So a rock might be free in it's static existence, but is very...very
unreceptive to change and therefore is not free at all. The progression in
morality is an ability to allow change, DQ. So with each level more
possibilities arise, the greatest number of possibilities are on the
intellectual level, the lowest number of possibilities on the inorganic
level. These possibilities are a consequence of the decrease in constraints
on the different levels.
It seems now that chaos would be highest moral goal, it is not because a
higher level is as you mentioned is always still constrained by lower
levels, and as the level is higher the constraints increase, but new levels
generate MORE possiblities then constraints and are therefore more moral.
>The rock might get squished into a different kind or rock or eroded out of
>existence, but a rock is completely free to express it's rock-ness so long
>as it exists, while a tree that is not grounded in good soil cannot fully
>express its tree-ness. How much harder still is it for a human to fully
>express herself?
>
>It seems to make sense to rank these levels in terms of capacity for
>freedom
>for self-expression rather than the amount of restriction on freedom. With
>each level, quality of existence is increased as measured by an increased
>capacity for freedom that may or may not be attained by individual rocks,
>plants, dogs, and people.
I know that everyone is busy and under no obligation to guide a newbie, but
if you could find it in your hearts...
Since no one directly responded to my description of the of the evolutionary
progression, I still don't know if it is...(I'll even make it multiple
choice)...
A. close enough and therefore not worth commenting on,
B. so far from any understanding of moq that it is beyond help.
C. 42
Steve
For pragmatic use, it works better for me to consider some situation and
then explain it in MOQ terms, rather then take the MOQ and enforce it into a
situation. But maybe that is just me,
Hope this helps a bit,
Davor
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:55 GMT