In a message dated 3/2/99 8:34:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, Kevin Sanchez
writes:
>In the realm of the Metaphysics of Quality, society has two purposes.
>First, to prevent biological quality from destroying society. Second, to
>prevent itself from destroying intellectual quality. Both protect
>individual rights -- merely on different levels. On protects biological
>individual rights, the other intellectual individual rights.
I agree with the first, but not the second. The social level cares nothing
about the intellectual level and will subvert it whenever it can. Half of
Lila could be read as the battle between the social and intellectual levels.
The second purpose of the social level (and all the levels for themselves) is
to continue the existence of the social level.
It's static latching.
>Every time society controls biology
>(BQ), it also harmfully effects the intellect (IQ) and spirit (DQ).
I would not agree with this in the MOQ perspective. In SOM thinking this may
be the case, but there is always a most dynamic choice that depend on a
certain amount of control. Yes, there will always be a battle between the
levels, but the MOQ says this is moral and thus not (necessarily but possibly)
harmful.
But then you go on and say:
>Therefore, I say, the MOQ supports the concept behind "innocent
>until proven guilty" because it forces society to prove that the societal
>harm of destructive biological patterns outweigh the benefits of
>intellectual patterns -- i.e., it asks for proof "beyond a reasonable
>doubt," that an individual source of intellect is so biologically
>disruptive of society to warrant strict social limitation. To suggest,
>otherwise -- "guilty until proven innocent" -- would too quickly grant
>society too much power to destroy intellect and spirit without assured harm
>from biology.
This is something with which I agree.
xcto
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 - 16:02:54 BST