Re: MD Time Out - Source of Truth ?

From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 23:30:13 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Intellect as highest value"

    On 20 November 2004 9:22 AM Ian writes to Platt, Joe, Mark, (and all),

    Platt - "Some agreed upon ethical standard ?"
    The MoQ again, what else ? BUT please note ...
    As Mark says - "I don't think [anyone or anything] should be in the business
    of setting and enforcing moral or religious standards AT ALL."
    The MoQ is a framework for judging and evaluating relative values and
    ethics, not a fixed standard - that would be a Static Quality imposed on the
    whole framework. As you say yourself Platt, quoting Robert "To put
    philosophy in the service
    of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of
    evolution trying to devour a higher one." This is as true of the MoQ as any
    other basis of values. This is where Lila goes off the rails IMHO -
    suggesting MoQ is some axiomatic metaphysics. There is nothing fixed about
    MoQ other than its (evolutionary) shape. A good, wise, common-sense,
    empirical (true) basis for evaulating relative values, not a fixed set of
    values. There is no bootstrap here - get used to it.

    Hi Ian, Platt, Mark and all,

    I enjoy "A good, wise, common-sense, empirical (true) basis for evaluating
    relative values, not a fixed set of values." I hesitate "one man's meat is
    another man's poison." How is the common-sense appreciated and accepted by
    an individual? What is the antidote to another's poison? Trust in my own
    opinion is a damn circle.

    IMO It is difficult to accept that evolution has produced a three level
    hierarchy for moral consideration, yet common-sense or morality seems to
    start there, "you'll know it when you see it". How does an organic talk to a
    social? How does an intellectual talk to an organic? How does a social talk
    to an organic, leaving aside a big stick? How do the three levels accept the
    ministrations of the inorganic parent? Inorganic science has its place, but
    sometimes inorganic science applied to behavior is not common-sense. What
    then?

    IMO mystical experience does not reveal central truths of itself or
    experience. Mystical experience is common-sense. When speaking from my
    common-sense it might be useful for me to know in what way I am deranged.
    What experience do I have of insanity? In what do I place an honesty to
    acknowledge that what is true for me may not be true for you, but we should
    keep talking. We may find common-sense. Know thyself! Get used to it.

    I was student in a Dominican run College in Mich., after being a peacekeeper
    in Korea. My professor, a Dominican monk told he had no fear that I would
    end in an insane asylum from the way I think. I was fortunate to grow up on
    a farm. I had the land as an anchor to stay out of the asylum. He was pretty
    strange himself, and I didn't put much weight on his words. That was 52
    years ago. I remember the sense of his words, I don't remember his name.

    Joe

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 22 2004 - 23:49:25 GMT