From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 18:24:09 BST
Hi Paul,
>I assume that last comment refers to me, if it
>doesn't, ignore the reply below.
I'm not sure who I was referring to about the intellectual level, but my
being irked went back a bit further than your recent posts on the subject.
>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 understood that. That seems like a fine way to differentiate, similar to
defining the 4th as 'thinking about' rather than just 'thinking' as was
suggested a few months ago by someone. (All levels value, the fourth level
values ideas and their propogation)
>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.
I couldn't care less about judging anyone. I oppose certain intellectual
patterns regardless of who is channelling them at the moment.
>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.
OK. That's not rejecting the social level in favor of the intellectual.
Platt was talking about throwing out SOM and my observation was that people
seem to inadvertantly slip into denigrating things, even as they acknowledge
that it is a necessary part of the MoQ and life, and how this tendency
showed itself recently in three different contexts.
>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.
That's for sure.
>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?
That may have been the point of writing Lila, sure.
>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.
Are there good and bad molecules and good and bad animals? I don't like
mosquitos much.
> > 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?
I don't think it was you that I was thinking of. It may not be a fair
description of anyone on this list at all, but I think anyone who takes the
side of dynamic over static quality, or intellect over social patterns, or
wants to throw out SOM is being silly and floppy and zealotrous. All of
those things have essential places in life and the MoQ, and don't need
cheerleaders (though I feel the aggrieved patterns need defenders when
denigrated).
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
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 - 18:24:27 BST