At 10:07 PM -0500 12/14/99, Cntryforce@aol.com wrote:
>
>My message is that humanity is guilty of not caring enough about humanity.
>
Ok. I admit it. I'm a human and I don't care enough. I see around me
much more need than I can ever meet. I don't have any way of
discriminating between priorities because I don't really understand how
value works, since all my education has been at the hands of academicians
who don't even think such a thing as "value" ultimately even exists.
Now I need values. I'm confronted with an infinitude of great-sounding but
conflicting systems that each preach themselves and their gods as the
ultimate source of values. How do I choose? What do I do? How do I
choose between values?
Help! Gee I sure wish somebody would develop some sort of metaphysics that
would at least let me discuss values, and at the same time understand
cultural relativity and keep the rabid dogma in its kennel.
>Is this really a message of low Quality in the eyes of the MOQ? Does in fact
>the MOQ dismiss this message as being utterly false?
How can it be low quality when it's true? There's no higher quality for an
intellectual concept than truth.
Oops, now THAT statement of mine was low quality because it WASN'T true.
Sometimes truths are non-relevant platitudes and sometimes lies are koans.
All depends on the context I guess. I still struggle with the idea of
conflict or difference between truth and good. Seems to me that in the
battle of Plato vs. the sophists, choosing EITHER horn gets you a good
goring... but I digress.
In my estimation of quality discourse, your statement is of high quality
and I respect it because it is true and thus begins the journey toward
higher truth. You can't start a map without stating exactly where you are.
I live in the midst of an immoral social system. Therefore I'm immoral and
unsatisfied with my condition.
Now, where do we go from there? Cause that's a great first step. Pirsig
says the first step is caring. I'd guess the whole dang Lila Squad is here
because they care at least on some level and want to see real solutions in
their own lives and society.
So we're involved in an intellectual process that takes time and a certain
faith that when we get it right, everybody knows it and some sort of
latching mechanism will manifest. Many involved in the process are not
satisfied that any progress is being made. Some involved in the proess
have a hard time believing any sort of progress is even possible given
inherent structural flaws within the MoQ itself. Could these please be
explicated more clearly and stated simply so that we may understand what
the conflict is truly about?
And if such problems can't be explicated, it seems sort of silly to just
complain about the failure of the MoQ constantly, eh? Not directed at
anyone in particular mind, just reflecting on a certain snippiness.
And no, I don't think the fact that everybody apprehends quality uniquely
is a structural refutation of the MoQ because even the fact that we
disagree about quality proves it exists.
And neither would I place the highest quality stamp upon the metaphysics
that produces the most uniformity of thought. Yuck.
jc
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:16 BST