From: jc (jcpryor@nccn.net)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 02:34:05 BST
>Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:28:48 -0700
>To: "Steve & Oxsana Marquis" <marquis@nccn.net>
>From: jc <jcpryor@nccn.net>
>Subject: Re: MD how do intellectual patterns respond to Quality?
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>At 10:13 AM -0700 8/9/05, Steve & Oxsana Marquis wrote:
>>
>>Knowing and understanding as I use the words refer to two different things.
>>Obviously you are using 'understanding' to encompass more than my version.
>>DQ, I believe, can be 'known', that is perceived directly. The problem is
>>transferring that knowledge into understanding that can be applied by the
>>intellectual level. It is like conveying to another what one's dream 'felt'
>>like. And that feeling may be the most important aspect of the dream. Are
>>intuitive insights possible? Of course. Watch out what ego labels
>>'intuitive' however.
>>
>
>
>jc
>
>Ok, that makes the complete opposite of sense to me. You say DQ can
>be perceived directly but it can't be applied into intellectual
>understanding. That's ridiculous. Sorry Steve, but it is. DQ can
>NOT be perceived directly but it can be inferred by analogy and
>intuition and... constructed as an intellectual concept which we
>discuss and analyse. Did you type that facing a mirror or
>something and get them mixed up accidentaly?
>
>You'll also have to explain to me the analytic necessity and
>usefulness of dividing knowing and understanding. Once something
>gets into my brain, it's intellectual fodder to be chewed on.
>Whether I know it or understand it or know that I understand it or
>understand that I know it. It's all the same to me...
>
>Steve
>
>>I never said existence requires definition.
>
>jc
>
>Aha, but you did attempt to define it.
>
>
>
>
>>Steve
>>
>>As I see it DQ experiments. It is a drive or push or preference for more
>>complex evolutionary stable patterns which we label as sq. However, until a
>>latch is secured we cannot discriminate. And all latches are not
>>necessarily improvements over what has gone before. You seem to think that
>>'consulting' DQ automatically results in higher quality latches for some
>>reason.
>
>
>jc
>
>Yes, because it's Capitalized. That's why. I've always been a
>sucker for capitalized acronyms.
>
>
>Steve
>
>> but what is wrong with attaching one's ego to higher moral purpose?
>>_______________
>>
>>You didn't see that 'higher moral purpose' was in quotes? The ego convinces
>>itself all the time that its beliefs and drives are a 'higher moral purpose'
>>. This is called rationalizing.
>
>jc
>
>What is wrong with rationalizing? In fact, what is wrong with ego?
>If I didn't have one, I wouldn't be here. Aren't you glad I'm here
>Steve?
>
>
>Steve
>
>>JC:
>>______________
>>
>>. what exactly are they [social obligations, SM]? Are they not to try and be
>>a vessel for DQ? And if you think the static systems of social patterns in
>>the society
>>are so great, then what are you doing here?
>>______________
>>
>>I do not disagree with the general purpose, but with the method used. To
>>what end is one a vessel of DQ?
>
>jc
>
>Quality.
>
>Steve
>
>
>> I'll attempt to clarify your purpose.
>
>jc
>
>thanks
>
>Steve
>
>>Each
>>agent has great self-potential for Quality. What might be a foundational
>>axiom for MOQ ethics is that each agent enables that potential in other
>>agents as much as possible.
>
>
>"Might be". hmm... why? Each agent must maximize his or her own
>potential. If out of that comes an influence and some good, great.
>But usually when agents try and judge what other agents need to
>enable their potential, they get it dead wrong. Even with the best
>of intentions and the most rigorous edu-training, it's tough. You
>gotta walk that lonesome valley. You gotta do it by yerself.
>
>
>Steve,
>
>>
>>Now, what is the 'best' (ie, highest quality) method for doing that?
>
>
>jc
>
>I told you. It's just like how to paint a perfect picture. Become
>perfect and paint naturally.
>
>Steve
>
>> Is it
>>to go around disrupting the smooth flow of others with unsolicited advice?
>
>jc
>
>Nope.
>
>
>Steve
>
>
>>
>>Maybe some times. Certainly not as a rule.
>
>jc
>
>Steve, I'm sorry, but I must point out that this is an intellectual
>forum and phrases such as "Maybe some times. Certainly not as a
>rule." has zero Quality intellectually. And since it also has
>little value socially and certainly none biologically, I wonder at
>your using it when you obviously are much higher quality
>intellectually and biologically than that.
>
>
>Steve
>
>> Rigel criticized Phaedrus for
>>disrupting social patterns with his book. But, a book requires the active
>>participation of the agent in that it must be read.
>
>
>jc
>
>And other social arrangements also require a reciprocal commitment.
>That's one reason community is so important to communication.
>Without a hearer, there is no speaker.
>
>Steve
>
>>Phaedrus was not
>>telemarketing Quality. Rigel's purpose was, indeed, to maintain social
>>tradition without consideration of a higher purpose.
>
>jc
>
>Phaedrus had sold a book when confronted by Rigel. He didn't need
>to telemarket it, that's what publishing houses are for. Quality in
>a vacuum is just like anything else in a vacuum. Nothing. And as
>far as Rigel was concerned, there is no higher purpose than
>maintaining social tradition. After all, that's what they are there
>for. To give one purpose.
>
>Steve
>
>>
>>Good rhetoric depends on knowing one's audience to solicit their active
>>agreement with what is being presented. A 'good' Sophist has the best
>>interest of his audience in mind; ie, one seeking full cooperative critical
>>agreement.
>
>jc
>
>A good sophist tells the truth. Truth is not a popularity contest.
>A bad sophist give the name sophistry it's negative connotation we
>have today.
>
>Steve
>
>> A good Sophist 'loves' his interlocuter.
>
>
>jc
>
>Well I must be a good sophist then because I certainly love mine.
>
>Steve
>
>>This is in stark
>>contrast to the Sophists as Plato portrayed them, so we have this false
>>inaccurate stereotype.
>
>jc
>
>yeah?
>
>
>
>Steve
>
>>
>>
>>Low quality rhetoric, OTOH, generates resistance and resentment.
>
>jc
>
>Ah, That was why Socrates had to drink the poison, no doubt. It
>was the low quality of his rhetoric that generated resistance.
>
>Not for the first time and hopefully not the last, I disagree
>vehemently again Steve. Usually the better quality the rhetoric,
>the more it inflames and maddens. The lower quality panders and
>lulls. Note any Presidential speech for numerous examples.
>
>Steve
>
>
>>This
>>accomplishes exactly the opposite of your stated purpose, to be a vehicle of
>>DQ.
>
>jc
>
>I never stated it was my purpose to be a vehicle for anything or
>anyone. I've got enough weight just lugging my own soul. I do
>believe being a vehicle of DQ is the highest purpose for any human,
>but I just want to live a quality life. As high in Quality as I can
>attain.
>
>
>Steve
>
>> One could criticize some US policy from this perspective. It's easy to
>>see from the days of empire and colonialism. One can criticize much
>>political activism (doesn't matter which party) or religious activism (doesn
>>'t matter which religion) from the same perspective. Ego, hiding behind the
>>self-righteous conviction of helping others, is going to go out and save the
>>world (IOW, control it).
>>
>>This incessant drive to 'do something' I believe is a shifting of attention
>>from what needs to be done, and that is work on fixing one's own character.
>
>jc
>
>And as I said before Steve, in many cases that is so true. I'm
>pretty sure it's true in your case because I have often noticed in
>your communication, you are plainly expounding on what you know best
>- yourself.
>
>
>Steve
>
>>Helping others is a natural consequence of good ('high quality') character.
>>So is civic participation and the rest of it. But without the base
>>established one is likely to generate more animosity even with the best of
>>intentions.
>>
>>So helping, it seems, must come without ego attachment to actually
>>accomplish what it set out to do. Justice, the 'social' virtue of the
>>cardinal four, is not possible without accomplishing the other virtues as
>>well (unity of the virtues).
>>
>>Evolution requires stability from which to evolve. Biology requires stable
>>inorganics etc. To tear into things instead of proceeding in a minimally
>>disruptive way without understanding seems to ignore this 'fact' of the MOQ.
>>In this sense the MOQ supports wu wei and the flowing with Nature of the
>>Greeks (smooth flow of life, living in accordance with nature, etc).
>
>
>jc
>
>On the other hand, you can't make an ohmmmm... elette without
>breaking a few eggheads.
>
>
>Steve
>
>
>>JC:
>>_________
>>
>>But yes, sq is what we all deal with every day. It's where the rubber meets
>>the road and the philosophically bakes our bread. It's vitally important.
>>So why don't you capitalize it Steve?
>>_________
>>
>>OK. SQ. There. Should have done that long ago :). Actually 'stable'
>>rather than 'static' is a better label. Something Mark or Matt came up with
>>???.
>>
>>
>>Live well,
>>Steve
>
>There, how does dynamic change feel? Freeing? Good? Not so bad???
>
>jc
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 10 2005 - 02:58:36 BST