Re: RE: MD MOQ human development and the levels

From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 09:45:49 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: RE: MD MOQ human development and the levels"

    Hi Johnny

    > This is the same sort of over-enthusiasm that irks
    > me about people who want
    > to throw out static quality and just celebrate
    > dynamic quality, or who want
    > to throw out "social level thinking' and only
    > respect intellectual thinking.

    I assume that last comment refers to me, if it
    doesn't, ignore the reply below.

    Clearly, my post to Matt wasn't very well written if
    you think the point of it was to 'throw out social
    level thinking', in my opinion there is nothing of the
    sort to throw out.

    I think you have me pegged as an intellectual elitist.
    This is a problem of discussion groups, you have no
    idea who I am, what I do to make ends meet, or
    anything except for my thoughts on the MOQ. And so you
    judge me by my comments and arguments, which is okay,
    if you choose to judge me you have nothing else to go
    on.

    And so back to the point, my argument is not that
    'social level thinking should be thrown out'. My
    argument is that society doesn't think, it values. And
    what it values is different to what other levels
    value.

    Or a better way to put it is, the static patterns of
    value that the MOQ identifies to define the social
    level are different to the static patterns of value
    that it identifies to define the inorganic, biological
    and intellectual levels.

    I thought that was the whole point of writing Lila, to
    answer people who rejected ZMM on the basis that if
    Quality is a constant, why does it become so variable
    and why do people have different opinions about it?

    So, to me, intellectual means thinking, that includes
    good and bad thinking, in the same way that the social
    level includes good and bad societies.
     
    > It is just silly, floppy zealotry that isn't
    > thought through. There is
    > nothing that the MoQ asks us to throw out except
    > silly floppy zealotry
    > itself.

    Speaking of different opinions, can you explain how
    you arrived at a well thought through opinion that my
    ideas make me a silly, floppy, zealot?

    cheers

    Paul

    __________________________________________________
    Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
    http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.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 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 09:46:58 BST