From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Oct 23 2002 - 19:55:08 BST
On 22 Oct 2002 at 5:19 Horse @ darkstar.uk.net wrote:
> Hi Darrell
>
> On 22 Oct 2002 at 8:26, Oldehippie1947@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Horse, etal.
> >
> > All of your arguments for judging other people make sense, and there is
only one argument to
> > sport my argument. Anytime judge the value of another human being you
support the power and
> > oppression of a society that marginalizes people. If you recognize this
principle you will see that
> > each time you judge another you encourage others to judge you meaning
that you violate
> > yourself each time you violate another human being. Therefore if you
wish to create a society
> > where being fully human is a productive lifestyle we only need to end
this practice. The only
> > method that will accomplish this is to promote and develop empathy in
society. It could be
> > incorporated in the school system and even in corporate training. It is
possible but if it is to
> > happen it should begin in academia.
>
> The main stumbling block here seems to be the semantics surrounding the
term
> judgement. In everyday use the term has strong connotations of
condemnation based on
> perceptions of a social nature. However within the MoQ it is at the root
of our interaction
> with the world on all levels. Reality is a moral order (one of the
fundamental properties
> of the MoQ) and we continually assess our interactions with the world. We
do this by
> experiencing and categorising patterns of value - this is what creates the
world.
> Judgement works at all static levels and with experience of Dynamic
Qualilty. Not just
> OUR experience but all experience from the ground up. Even without the
presence of
> humans judgement occurs and this judgement is a moral judgement. A causes
B (SOM)
> is judgement free but B prefers precondition A (MoQ) is a moral judgement.
Precondition
> A is better than precondition C.
> When humans make judgements they are doing no more than this but in a more
> complex way to the nth degree because we are so much more complex and are
created
> by all levels of value patterns and by our unique ability to react to
Dynamic Quality.
> If our judgements were limited to social patterns of value I would agree
with you but they
> aren't, so I don't.
> We continually hear examples of judgements of others based on purely
social patterns
> of value and whilst these may have validity on occasion they are not the
full picture.
> With the introduction of a quality-centerd order to the world moral
judgements gain a
> validity that was previously absent.
>
>
> Horse
>
Hi Horse,
I agree 'semantics surrounding the term judgement' is a stumbling block.
IMO the MoQ is a description of how we know things. Through instinct I
experience undefinable Dynamic Quality. I am changed! I have no words so I
cannot talk about it. This is my experience.
I can reflect upon this experience since my memory is a recorder and does
not need words. When talking to another I use word metaphors or gesture
metaphors and hope that my actions will trigger the memory of the other of
similar experience. Friends do similar things. Afterwards I create a word
that will represent the experience and will always trigger the memory. Thus
the experience becomes a defined Static Quality, and I can use it for
communication. In the beginning was the word IMO is a different formulation
from Revelation.
IMO judgements are not dynamic experiences, and definitely need the human
ability for definition to make possible communication about moral orders.
My judgements do not change the moral orders. To judge me puts me into a
static category. The assumption is that I will not change. If I change the
judgement will be undefinable and useless. Neither will the one judging be
able to change because the judgement will become imprecise. IMO not being
able to change violates me. I act from the certainty of experience which
changes me. For example racism and religious bigotry are judgements of
individuals. In another moral order racism and religious bigotry are not
judgements of individuals but of a group. In either case if I am judged I
can experience it, and act badly. If I judge I can also act badly. By
experience I avoid people who may harm me, not from judgement.
joe
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 - 10:38:00 GMT