From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 18:45:57 BST
Hi Platt,
> > Why isn't SOM allowed to have Quality at the top, too? There has to be
> > something at the top.
>
>Because to those with the SOM outlook, values are always subjective, never
>objective.
They aren't objective in the MoQ either, practically speaking, because we as
subjects are not able to access the objective so-called source of value.
What I mean to do by putting Morality at the top is connect all the subjects
and objects, show that they are interdependent creations of morality, and
yes, show that to each thing, value is subjective, but because of morality,
usually similar to other subjective opinions of value. And that it is good
for culture to educate subjects to believe shared values, to believe that
values are objective and true.
> > I account for time by substituting the
> > word Expectation for Quality, expectation contains the same moral push
>to
> > the future that DQ does, but connects it explicitly with OUR
>expectation,
> > it doesn't leave it otherworldly and undefined but puts it squarely in
>our
> > world and visible.
>
>Visible? I've never seen an expectation.
Our expectations are based on our understanding of the world as we see it.
We expect someone to say "thank you" when we pass them the potatoes, because
we've seen people do that before (OK, that's audible, not visible, but you
get the point. By visible I mean we come to awareness of it though
experience). We expect a ball to bounce because we've experienced balls
bouncing, and that is WHY balls bounce. The first time we ever see a ball,
our only expectation is that whatever this thing is, it will behave as
others have experienced it, our experience will be like other people's. We
don't expect everyone's universe to be different, we expect that we share an
objective reality, all derived from morality at the top, everything coming
out of the word.
>Is it your view that cultures determine what is moral and that if a
>culture approves of human sacrifice that human sacrifice is moral? If not,
>why not?
Cultures most definitely determine the social level of Morality, or what is
"moral", and I would say that in the broadest sense of the word, culture
determines every level of morality. Culture and Morality are almost
synomymous, though specific connotations of each word sure aren't.
Regarding human sacrifice, weren't you the one that supported the Iraq
invasion? And yes, the only reason a culture would make a habit of throwing
virgins into the volcano would be if it was moral to do so.
>I asked you to show me a moral. You showed me a pope, a preacher and a
>couple of actors playing fathers. To suggest that a moral is a particular
>person strikes me as rather odd. I would never think of greeting my dad by
>saying, "Hi moral man" or describing the pope as the "moral potentate."
>Anyway, your examples assume morality is something that applies only to
>human relationships. Pirsig suggests morality applies to everything.
I thought you asked me to show the real visible things that propogated
morals, specifically social patterns. Morality certainly applies to
everything, everything that exists exists because of a moral pattern,
including rocks, animals, customs, roles, laws, economies, etc.
> > >Language doesn't give value. Value is inherent in things. DQ doesn't
>give
> > >purpose. DQ is a symbol for the force that creates things and makes
>them
> > >better.
> >
> > You are using vivid SOM language here: "Value is inherent in things"?
>"DQ
> > is a symbol"? I assume you mean value is inherent in quality, in
>morality.
>
>No, I meant what I said. I don't know what you mean by "SOM language."
>I thought I was writing in English.
By "SOM language", I meant you used the word "things." I agree that value
is inherent in things, and that these things are patterns of value, but that
value doesn't exist until the pattern embodies itself as a thing, value
requires a subject to value and an object to be valued. The whole of
Morality is the source of the value that creates the subject and object.
>Your mindset seems to be that if I call a bear a bear I'm in the real
>world of SOM but if I call it a pattern of values I'm in fantasy world of
>MoQ. Words are merely symbols pointing to the experience. I'm sure you're
>familiar with the following:
>
>"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
>By any other name would smell as sweet."
>
>You can say "bear" and think of a large furry creature with big teeth and
>bad
>breath, or as a character in a children's book called "Pooh," or as pattern
>of
>biological morality. Whatever, the word "bear" can't tear your arm off.
No, I was saying that if you say the bear is real, an object, you are in SOM
land, and if you say that it is a pattern of value, not an object, you are
in MoQ land.
>Guess we're going to find it necessary to agree on what we mean by
>"pattern." For me, a pattern is any meaningful arrangement of elements.
>So, you and I and everybody else are identifiable patterns, sharing a
>common pattern of humanity that feels joy and pain.
That's what I see a pattern as also, but perhaps I would add that a pattern
is an expectation of how an arrangment of elements (other patterns) will
behave. It has an element of propogation to it, patterns are how a
relationship of elements extends into the future. Their first moral duty is
to do what they are expected to do as a pattern. For example, trees budding
and leafing out when the weather turns warm and it rains is a pattern, trees
do that because we expect them to (and we expect them to because morality
formed our expectations). (and, we also have an expectation that we live in
an objective real world that will do what it does regardless of how much we
know about them, we expect that all observers of a tree will see the same
sort of patterns, so we do.)
> > I think if we can infer quarks and gravity and other things that SOM has
>a
> > little trouble seeing directly, we can infer culture exists by seeing
> > buildings and roads and road signs and newspapers.
>
>I agree with you. But not all anthropologists who study such things do.
I'm sure it is a matter of semantics. Virtually all disagreements are.
>What cultures do you know where hardly anyone works ever? Even a chimp
>"culture" has to work to find food.
Consider the lilys of the field...
And how about a response to my point about the difference between American
and European work hours? Are Europeans irrationally lazy? Or do they just
culturally value work less than Americans do? Ninety-nine percent of the
work Americans do is for the Giant, selfish work that enslaves people on the
other side of the globe and tempts and taunts them - Join the Giant,
Resistance is Futile, etc...
> > Actually, those value patterns did fall into our laps. You were never a
> > baby Platt? No one ever fed, sheltered and clothed you? We learned an
> > expected standard of living as babies - our expectations were implanted
>in
> > us before we had a chance to consider any other expectations.
>
>Expectations do not a standard of living make. Work does. In the "real
>world" somebody has to work to keep you alive. :-)
If I was brought up to believe that hunger was a normal state of existence,
and that people only had one pair of pants that they wore all year, that's
what I'd believe was expected. If I was brought up witnessing my cultures
strong work ethic and savoring the fruits of all that labor, I'd believe
that was expected and normal. I might even believe it was irrational to not
work as hard as I do.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 18:46:21 BST