Re: MD Time Out - Source of Truth ?

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Nov 23 2004 - 01:30:08 GMT

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ"

    Jo,

    I think I like where you're going with this.
    Unfortunately I'm going off-line for a few days !

    I expect the MoQ Discussion forum has been here before, but I haven't.

    How do we use the MoQ to arrive at the common-sense we can agree we have in
    common ?
    At least in the human debate, I hope we can agree when we're debating the
    social and intellectual levels with little confusion over biological and
    physical.
    I think the key is noticing when the intellectual debate you're having is
    validly constrained by social "convention" - but as I say, I'm new in this
    territory.
    I've been waiting two years for MD discussions to get to this point free of
    the religious and scientific baggage.

    I think the "debate" between levels of MoQ *IS* the source of truth.

    Ian
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau@sbcglobal.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 11:30 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Time Out - Source of Truth ?

    > 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
    >

    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 : Tue Nov 23 2004 - 01:57:05 GMT