Platt, I don't think you interpreted my philosophy correctly. I have a few
thoughts if you would like to delve further into this...
Platt wrote:
"Rob Stillwell posed the question, “Who is the better judge of a moral question,
an open-minded, sensitive person or one who is well versed in the MOQ?”
My unequivocal answer is, “One well versed in the MOQ.” What's the alternative?
Just what we have today--moral relativism--where everyone and anyone is free to do
his own thing without fear of punishment (except maybe murder, but then again look
at O.J.)."
Rob Replies lightly but seriously:
The alternative is to teach people to become more sensitive. If we learned to let
go of our ideals, desires, and fought to observe value first hand, I think we
would have an amazing society. Without the sensitivity, teaching the MOQ does
limited changes to our minds and nothing in our hearts and attitudes. Assuming OJ
killed Nicole, and he really observed the consequence of his actions -- would he
feel truely happy, content, and at peace? I doubt it. The only chance for a
fundamental change in OJ, would be for him to embrace reality - acceptance of the
pain his jealousy inflicted to so many people. By forgetting this and simply
teaching OJ the MOQ, there would be no fundamental change. He would *think* about
-- instead of experience -- what he had done. Without any increased sensitivity
and assuming OJ believed in the MOQ, he would probably rationalize something about
"having to kill her" as being the truth and some sort of dynamic/intellectual
quality, which the MOQ should somehow support.
That is why everyone here disagrees on politics, how to run the group, and so
forth. We often take the wrong approach. If instead of argueing how to apply the
MOQ, we closely observed and shared our perspectives -- without judgement -- I
think the group would approach the truth and find agreement more readily. Don't
get me wrong, I think there is genuine sharing on the list. I think, however,
your views suggest more of the first approach and my views suggest more of the
second approach.
I would bet the likes of Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandella, Ghandi, etc, were much
more at peace with themselves than OJ. Their attention was focused on the good
and bad patterns of reality as opposed to the superficial thoughts that must have
misdirected OJ -- needs for popularity, "success", ownership, respect, and so
forth.
The MOQ justifies paying close attention to our experiences - where value lives.
If one is already doing that, I have not found any advantage to knowing the MOQ.
If I am hungry I eat. If someone smiles at me, I smile back. If someone is
hurting and needs my help, I try to help. I am not perfect, but I try to do these
things, because I actually feel better doing them and I observe the goodness from
them.
For experience/reality/value/love to take over, I think one has to let go of all
ideals, religion, culture, political objectives, and metaphysical views. Then
value grabs us. Learn and apply knowledge but when the mind gets overconfident
remember that reality is made of patterns. We experience patterns and try to
explain them, not the other way around. Never conclude. Keep listening,
observing, questioning, and the mind will always be passionate, creative, and
loving.
I am curious what you think about this.
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 - 16:02:53 BST