From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 19:19:57 GMT
David Harding, Rebecca, All
4 Nov. D.H. wrote:
to Rebecca who had written.,
> > Sometimes when I read posts around here, I like to pretend that
> > we're at a bar and each thread is one of those stand up tables with
> > people hanging around it having a discussion. It's really amusing
> > to picture someone stalking others around the room screaming at
> > random snippits of conversation they hear and seem to disagree
> > with.... but I digress.
Yes, at times one wonders what this discussion would look like "in
the flesh". A Muppet Show with its hecklers maybe ;-)
> > I think it's good when somebody pisses me off, in this discussion
> > group or elsewhere. I'm always up for a challenge and if you really
> > got my goat then there must be something to it. For me, it's how one
> > reacts to the challenge that's important. If you read something and
> > think 'wow, I'd like to throttle that guy' you'd better step back
> > and ask yourself _why_? (apparently my favourite question). Is he
> > just being an asshole that I should ignore (or perhaps make a subtle
> > jab at), or are my beliefs being sincerely challenged and that's
> > what I dislike? Once I calm down the answer usually comes, and it's
> > usually the latter.
Rebecca, you haven't been "pissed off", not that I have noticed,
rather you seem difficult to get in touch with. You have launched
several (two at least) interesting ideas, but when one tries to
explore them you seem absent. Maybe you have too much
respect for DMB so when he dismissed your Mythos/Logos idea
you saw that as the final word, but it deserves much more
attention.
David Harding went on to comment Rebecca's parting words:
> > It's all relative anyhow :)
by saying
> I disagree,
> What with the popular, of cultural relativism I actually think this is
> a dangerous standpoint to take. People are poor, people are rich, it's
> all relative; people live, people are killed, it's all relative;
> people lie, people are honest, it's all relative.
In the SOM quality is subjective and with no objective values
reality is relative. The MOQ ends this by making values the very
ground and also provides an explanation (of the present
relativity) by seeing SOM as its own intellectual level (by the
SOL interpretation at least)
> It's not. What happens in one culture is not completely disrelated to
> another. Just because hedonism is bad in one culture and O.K. in
> another doesn't suddenly make hedonism 'relative'. Hedonism, i.e
> intellectual advocacy of biological quality, threatens social value
> and so it is bad not just for one particular person in one particular
> culture at a certain time, but for all people, everywhere.
I agree with this and you seem to see the SOL point by saying:
"Hedonism, i.e intellectual advocacy of biological quality ...etc.
Only it's not just hedonism which is intellect's advocacy, SOM
(which is intellect without the MOQ overview) does all it can to
undermine social value.
Bo
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 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 21:10:44 GMT