From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 16:38:37 GMT
Arlo
I wonder where an evolutionary way forward lies?
One that enables the 4th level to flourish.
The 4th level seems to be weak currently in many ways.
Academics seem very remote from the common culture
and in the death throes of SOM.
The common culture is very low quality and about sex and
sensationalism and social status, but at least it is now a
common and almost universal culture.
At the edges of social science, philosophy, science I see
some moves beyond SOM clearly appearing.
Can these new possibilities find their way into the common
culture? Can what is common and low quality be pulled
up to engage with the 4th level?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" < >
To: < >
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: MD A Question of Balance / Rules of the Game
> [Platt to Case]
> "A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological
> values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a
> culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social
> values is absolutely superior to one that does not. It is immoral to speak
> against a people because of the color of their skin, or any other genetic
> characteristic because these are not changeable and don't matter anyway.
> But it is not immoral to speak against a person because of his cultural
> characteristics if those cultural characteristics are-immoral. These are
> changeable and they do matter." (Lila, 24)
>
> So much for social science and the notion that all cultures are moral
> equals. David got it right.
>
> [Arlo]
> Platt is correct, we can judge the characteristics of a culture. The
> things to
> remember are that "a culture that supports the dominance of social values
> over
> biological values" is only "more moral" when those suppressed biological
> values
> are actually threatening the existence of the social level. Same for the
> Intellect dominance over social patterns. Suppression is only moral when
> higher
> levels are threatened. Hence, there are many "characteristics" of American
> culture that are immoral by MOQ measures. Social level patterns,
> multicultural
> traditions, are only "immoral" when they suppress Intellectual level
> patterns,
> or when they wrongly suppress unthreatening biological patterns. Which
> brings
> me the second thing to remember, that Pirsig is judging "characteristics"
> and
> not making blanket statements based on one or two measures. In his
> disapproval
> of multiculturalism, Platt must propose "uniculturalism" to fill the void.
> Which works for him because it is everyone else who must "become like him"
> (he,
> of course, doesn't need to change at all). Platt uses "Islamofascism" to
> condemn all respect for the cultural traditions originating among Middle
> Eastern populations. I agree that characterists of militant Islam are
> immoral
> by MOQ measures, but I don't damn the entire social-cultural milieu, any
> more
> than I damn the entire social-cultural milieu of America because the
> characterists of Fundamental Christians are immoral according to MOQ
> measures.
>
> Arlo
>
>
> 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 -
>
> 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 -
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 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 19:05:27 GMT