RE: MD Racist Remarks

From: Laycock, Jos (OSPT) (Jos.Laycock@OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK)
Date: Tue Aug 02 2005 - 10:30:38 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD Conflict"
  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD MOQ: Involved or on the Sideline?"

    Thanks Ian

    I find my fragile understanding exposed more easily than I had anticipated
    and some questions spring to mind as a result.

    Firstly I'm still not totally clear as to the difference that you describe
    between relative topology and absolute positions. If I begin by reneging
    totally on my original position and accepting the below description in place
    of my own, then I now find that either any reference to black and white is
    wrong (1) or I need to look differently (2).
    1)If relationships between all entities within the system "are dynamic
    quality" then this must include the class of intellectual entities that we
    call levels?
    If so, then there is no longer any distinction between the relative topology
    of the levels structure, and a description of absolute position, as this too
    is only absolute with reference to DQ.
    2)Unless what you are saying is that the relative topology of the levels
    framework is judged and described by its own static moral standards
    (reason/logic) not the ones we are trying to apply to descriptions of DQ
    interactions (absolute position). These by their nature are evolved above
    the intellectual level and anything described in terms of this second set,
    will be grey to intellect because it is beyond it.

    or perhaps neither...

    Secondly, I didn't (maybe still don't) agree that "The underlying moral
    framework is just another layer with which to make comparisons."
    By underlying moral framework I was referring to 3[an inexorable move of all
    things towards the (indefinable) good]. Whereas your response implied that I
    was describing a static value system akin to a single level based morality.
    Of course this is an intellectual construct but related to the above
    comments I now want to use the greyness (2) inherent in [3] to show at least
    partial escape from intellect.

    So my synthesis becomes:

    The "grey" absolute positions of cultural values relative to undefined DQ
    cannot be known to intellect. Ranked moral orders drawn within levels are
    entirely of intellect and do not describe absolute positions. Doctor and
    germ tags cannot be assigned by the use of intellect.

    I don't like this conclusion very much, please criticise it in such a way as
    to allow me to feel morally superior to terrorists again.

    Jos

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of ian glendinning
    Sent: 30 July 2005 07:48
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: MD Racist Remarks

    Jos,

    The MoQ and Pirsig's words are not "tablets of stone".
    If you read me as turning black and white into (grey) mud, then you
    are understanding me correctly.

    The only thing black and white about the MoQ Layers is their toplogy,
    their arrangement relative to each other, not their absolute postions
    / definitions. The layers we think of as fixed, the four main layers
    and any number of static latches within are only "temporarily fixed".
    The relationships between them are "dynamic quality".

    Either way the static components are only static temporarily. The
    inorganic / physical layer over cosmological time-scales (and our more
    fleeting intellectual representations thereof), the biological / life
    layer over bio-evolutionary timescales, etc ...

    It's probably more the case that I missed your main point, by making
    the above point in response (it was just an aside).

    I think I may agree with your statements in this last post, if I
    understand you correctly. You said
    "I don't care what the truth is, just what is better, and the "fact" that
    viewpoints move relative to their own social context does not alter their
    relationship with the underlying moral framework. To summarise, I
    maintain that cultures are inherently comparable and that a value
    truth can be accurately ascribed to that comparison."

    ie the value you are ascribing is only relative, concerned with
    "comparison" between cultures or layers. The underlying moral
    framework is just another layer with which to make comparisons.

    Ian

    On 7/29/05, Laycock, Jos (OSPT) <Jos.Laycock@offsol.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
    > Hi Ian
    >
    > Please accept an apologetic preface to the following remarks, I am almost
    > sure that I misunderstand you, and if this is the case then I would be
    > grateful for further explanation:
    >
    > When I read back what you have written all it does is convert black and
    > white, into mud.
    > I honestly did not intend any specific judgements from what I originally
    > wrote but I still maintain that whether or not "we" are directly appraised
    > of it, the MOQ has a moral standpoint on all things.
    >
    > When you say "relatively static latches" what do you mean? The underlying
    > dichotomy that is accepted within the MOQ is the difference between static
    > and dynamic, so how can you imply that there can be a relativism? Either a
    > latch is static or it is not a latch.
    > I agree that the mechanisms that generate cultural viewpoints may result
    > from dynamic interactions but I don't understand the impact that this
    > acceptance has, on an "all seeing MOQ".
    > If we were talking about material existence here I would have no problem,
    > but I referred to morality and value.
    >
    > I don't care what the truth is, just what is better, and the "fact" that
    > viewpoints move relative to their own social context does not alter their
    > relationship with the underlying moral framework.
    >
    > To summarise, I maintain that cultures are inherently comparable and that
    a
    > value truth can be accurately ascribed to that comparison.
    >
    > Jos
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of ian glendinning
    > Sent: 29 July 2005 02:54
    > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > Subject: Re: MD Racist Remarks
    >
    >
    > Jos,
    >
    > Perhaps there is a middle view ...
    >
    > Say, It is viewpoint specific, but the viewpoints are not wholly
    > subjective. What we have is a framework of relatively static latches
    > with dynamic mechanisms for shifting them and moving viewpoints
    > between them.
    >
    > Ian
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    > PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
    >
    > On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
    > Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by
    Energis
    > in partnership with MessageLabs.
    >
    > Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
    > for further details.
    >
    > In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
    >
    >
    > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
    > addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
    > permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
    copies
    > and inform the sender by return e-mail.
    >
    > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
    > intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
    deciding
    > whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
    >
    > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
    monitored,
    > recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
    > monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
    > at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
    > composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
    >
    >
    >
    > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
    Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
    in partnership with MessageLabs.
    >
    > On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
    >
    >
    > 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

    PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
     
    On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
    Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
    in partnership with MessageLabs.
     
    Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
    for further details.

    In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk

    This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
    addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
    permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
    and inform the sender by return e-mail.

    Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
    intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
    whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

    This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
    recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
    monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
    at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
    composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

    The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.

    On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free

    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 Aug 02 2005 - 15:22:26 BST