Bodvar-
Not that it has any bearing on your answers, but those riddles didn't come
from me. I'm still too concerned with the overbearing relativism that seems
to be inherent in the system. And the fact that all of these problems are
problems of hindsight... what can the MoQ do for the future?
Good luck on the exhibition of your paintings. I'd love to get at look at
them sometime.
Rick
At 09:04 AM 11/5/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi everybody!
>
>MAGNUS (once) said the obvious: value, quality and moral are
>identical so the morality debate is really a reissuement of our old
>(definition) discussions - even if we give it an ethics form, but
>the debate has ignited so here we go.
>
>JONATHAN'S insight about the upper level evaluating or
>arbitrating the one below it is good and valid, but he found an
>inconsistency within the MOQ by the fact that a lower level may
>influence - in the sense of inflicting damage to - the upper.
>
>DIANA answered this splendidly and I agree with how natural
>catastrophes may wipe out life in great scales without it threatening
>Biology as such, except spurring it on to renewed effort. This is
>part of the conflict between the moral levels that LILA speaks about.
>
>The very purpose of each value pattern is to "control" the values of
>the previous one, but it is also a MOQ tenet that the one below is
>its foundation and as Inorganic value is the base of it all, it's
>no wonder that it can shake not only Life but the whole edifice.
>
>The problem for the MOQ by the quotation from LILA about the chair
>consisting of little moral entities, I don't quite understand. Is it
>the fact that matter is a MORAL level and thus is supposed to be GOOD
>and not inflict damage to Biology? If so I think...
>
>XCTO and ROGER put it right: The lower level "knows" no value above
>itself. The Inorganic level keeps up inorganic value, that is the
>moral that Life is a revolt against. A lightning does not strike a
>tree or an animal or a human being, it IS inorganic value at work
>oblivious of any living thing standing in its way. There are
>upheavals within Biology that destroys societies (illness) without
>SoPoV being affected and Social conflicts that shakes
>Intellect badly without lasting effects on the Intellectual Patterns
>of Value.
>
>GLOVE in that context referred to the German thinker Wittgenstein
>who, during WW2, asked how it was possible to philosophize in such
>times. Exactly!
>
>RICK introduced the morals of war. Was it ethical of the USA to drop
>the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Jonathan defended it by
>pointing to the shortening of the war, I agree but feel that it isn't
>fully satisfying to what is at stake here.
>
>DONALD R. did have a go at the problem but ended in a question of
>relativity. The Japanese would have been just as right in dropping a
>bomb on the USA.
>
>In my opinion war is an intersocial conflict (between the social
>structures we call countries or nations and alliances of such) over an
>endless array of issues. However, according to LILA the "world wars"
>of the twentieth century has been Intellect versus Society, which is:
>Intellectual values influenced countries (culture) versus Social
>influenced cultures.
>
>[I must stress again that the essence of Intellectual value is the
>individual as the most valuable entity and the countless derivatives
>from it; democracy and human rights the chief issues here].
>
>But when it comes to shooting in anger the high ideals fade somewhat
>and the age old social slogan 'them against us' takes over. President
>Truman could possibly have demonstrated the bomb on a remote island
>and achieved surrender by and by, but the Japanese had reverted a
>step further back into the ultimate social measurements where the
>individual is supposed to throw its body into the defence of the
>"hive", the Kamikaze attacks were a greater threat than usually
>realized and time was short.
>
>Yet IMO the USA and the Allied had the moral upper hand,
>Intellect-value-influenced societies are of higher value than
>Social-value-dominated ones. Democracy is better than dictatorship.
>But there are so many factors involved that - at the Intellectual
>level - the discussion can go on till kingdom comes.
>
>RICK added a few more riddles that I'll try to cover without sounding
>glib. A TRIBE cannot destroy a forest, not even Brazil; it's the
>Western culture. But moral? It's of no concern to trees, they grow
>and die like all organisms and don't discriminate between termites
>and chainsaws. Yet, if oxygen becomes depleted Intellect will
>(through the chain of command) EXPERIENCE the morals of the act, and
>re-evaluate.
>
>The Middle East terrorists is the war issue again, I wish we
>could cover the West vs Islam conflict in a separate thread: it is
>such a huge and "interesting" conflict, and a case where the MOQ
>explains things so much better than SOM.
>
>The one about the Japanese attacking the Lila Squad was hilarious -
>but I see your point. Yet, look at it this way Rick: The LS is
>not in conflict with the Social value level (if your "Japan" is a
>name for it?), but the LS can be seen as a dynamic effort to free
>existence from the last static clutch of INTELLECT and accordingly;
>Intellect is the "enemy" that attacks us! Not just pompous academics,
>but the intellectual part of existence - of ourselves!.
>
>Phew, I am supposed to have a show of my paintings in December, but it
>is so much more fun to solve the universal riddles :-)
>
>Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST