From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 03 2005 - 02:22:26 BST
Hi Jos,
I wouldn't feel undermined by my views, no-one's jumped in to support
them just yet.
Your final point - relatively speaking there is no doubt you are
superior to the individual terrorists and any active terrorist
organisations, or any passive supporters of terrorists - so don't
panic. The relative postions are pretty secure, that's the point.
Your other points. I'm going to have to find time to come back on later.
Bye for now.
Ian
On 8/2/05, Laycock, Jos (OSPT) <Jos.Laycock@offsol.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> 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
>
>
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 : Wed Aug 03 2005 - 04:15:40 BST