Hi lilaqs,
ROB>
>I have tried very hard to understand the levels, but I have always failed
or given up. Even used as a guide to go with experience, I think they are
wrong. Take the Clinton thing. Someone who has cheated a little
his/herself might twist the MOQ as support: Someone who has been hurt by an
extramarital affair might twist the MOQ [too].
>How does one find truth by going through these types of arguments?
>Be nonjudgemental. "Where there is love, there is also clarity".
You have identified a flaw alright. A wry paradoxical flaw too!
But the flaw is more than just the proposed levels. The flaw is in the
reliance on logic to reconcile the Clinton morality. Logic can be twisted in
any biased direction you like. however, as you point out, an open mind is
the best tool for assesment. Now the irony is that the flaw in the current
interpetation of the MOQ is that intellect is riddled with pre-judgement.
And yet the intellect is hailed as the highest level of the MOQ. No the
open-pre-intellectual-mind is much more likely to be the pre-eminent level
of the MOQ
>1. Life is better than non-life.
>2. Groups of life are better than one life.
>3. Any reasonable idea (no definition of reasonable) is potentially
>better than 1 and 2.
>4. Anything "dynamic" could be better than 1, 2 and 3 but "dynamic" is
undefinable.
1 and 2 above are fairly spot on as they are the dynamic of the exploding
godhead. God is split from the absolute one to the dualism of the many- the
group as you say.
3 and 4 are great points because of the flexibility and openness of your
approach to betterness. Yet, as i wrote recently the "better" concept is
like a death warrant to all that is "good" today, for no matter how good we
think things are, DQ has a better solution and will destroy today to get to
tomorrow.
love
Fintan
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST