Re: MD levels (Down with Types of Patterns, Up with Types ofValue)

From: Monkeys' tail or (elkeaapheefteen@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2002 - 14:04:58 GMT

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates"

    Steve says:

    Dynamic good is fredom of static patterns

    Davor:

    So is degeneracy!

    Steve:

    Here I disagree. Degeneracy is freedom from social patterns, but not
    biological patterns. I think that awareness of each of the four levels is
    how we become free of their static patterns and act out of dynamic morality.

    (Note that I said "awareness of" rather than "awareness on" in deference to
    your previous post on awareness. Or do you think an awareness/consciousness
    distinction makes some sense?)

    Davor:

    I very much like your description, I think you are right and I am wrong.
    This is not the first time I have stated this, about a year ago I promised
    Rog(now Paco) a post on degeneracy and I am still not able to get the idea
    os their inseperateness out of my head. I feel that there is absolutely no
    way we can seperate the saviours from the degenerates on the <moment of
    truth> (whether the moment degeneracy kicks in, or DQ hits the shore)I
    cannot explain it though, if I am right it must have something to do with
    becoming conscious of the way the act is latched. I am sorry I cannot say
    anything useful, the idea has to sink in further.

    Steve:

    Static patterns are relative

    Davor:

    In the way that they are not fixed by nature, not in the way they are
    perceived by man.

    Steve:

    I don't understand what you mean. Can you expound?

    Davor:

    I hate it when this happens, I do not think I wanted so say what the above
    states but as a stupid foreigner when I cannot find the right words I write
    something that I feel is close to it. In this case I do not believe it was
    close to what I mend; Ok this is what I mend from the man himself, the
    first time I have ever quoted Pirsig p.88(I got an English copy of Lila last
    week, I did not think it would make a difference in my understanding of the
    MOQ, it does);

    ''May I come out and fight?'' the author said. ''My exact statement was that
    people do disagree as to what Quality is, but their disagreement is only on
    the objects in which they think Quality inheres''. (Rigel says) ''What's
    the difference?''(author again) ''Quality on which there is complete
    agreement, is a universal source of things. The objects about which people
    disagree are merely transitory''.

    Hope that helps a bit

    Steve:

    What can I say? Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. I
    still don't know that I can apply the moq to answer moral conflicts, but I
    have a better idea of what people mean when they talk about the levels.

    Davor:

    Cheers to you too, it made my understanding defintely clearer. The MOQ is
    not something you just can accept, it is a radical(in the traditional
    sense)philosophy that will take a long time before one can say he or she is
    a true MOQist and can use it as a pragmatic vehicle for analysing moral
    conflicts, I wish you well on your journey.

    Davor

    _________________________________________________________________
    Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 11 2002 - 14:05:15 GMT