RE: MD Democracy in the MOQ

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 11:05:41 GMT

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Language in the MOQ"

    On 30 Nov 2003 at 13:49, David Buchanan wrote:

    > Mati, Paul and all lovers of human rights:

    DMB, Paul, Mati & All
    Great post this one DMB, the democracy vs totalitarianism is one
    among the many fields that the MOQ throws new light upon with its
    static level systems.

    > Paul said:
    > Intellect does not replace society any more than society replaces
    > biology. The levels aren't "eras," to be permanently left behind.
    > ...each level offers freedom from the static forces below and must not
    > be completely undermined. Morality is not about picking one level over
    > all others, it is a complex struggle, a balancing act.
     
    > dmb replies:
    > Again, I think this is nearly perfect, but I'd tweak it a bit. I think
    > that calling it a balancing act is a bit misleading. The moral codes
    > basically tell us that in cases where the levels are in conflict, we
    > ought to choose the higher one. (Another very importanat reason to
    > maintain the distinction between the social and intellectual levels.)
    > This is why we have the code of art, the fifth moral code, which says
    > that when everything else is equal (on the same level and such) we are
    > to choose the more Dynamic one.

    A fifth moral code? Doesn't that indicate a "budding level" above
    intellect that creates another struggle? This is of course my own
    Quality level, something which is required for intellect to be a STATIC
    level in the Quality universe ..which it is supposed to be, no?

    Paul's scoffing at the "era" idea is based on a misunderstanding. That
    each level is "left behind" by the formation of the next higher does not
    mean that it is permanently ...anything. Each level has had an epoch
    of dominance - when it was Q-evolution's spearhed - that can't be
    denied.

    > In all cases the trick is to see which
    > is the most evolved and go with that. This is why he insists that we
    > make a distinction between those things that social values are meant
    > to control (biology) and those things that should not be controlled by
    > social values (intellect). So we could put it in terms of "balance",
    > but it strikes me as something less than the perfect word. If there is
    > a social level value, for example, that encroaches on intellectual
    > freedom we ought not try to balance it with anything. We ought to
    > reject it because its immoral to allow social level values to inhibit
    > the freedom of intellect. The next two Pirsig quotes paint a pretty
    > clear picture of this idea....
     
    > "Intellect can support static patterns of society without fear of
    > domination by carefully distinguishing those moral issues that are
    > social-biological from those that are intellectual-social and making
    > sure there is no encroachment either way." [Lila p.345]

    IMO intellect cannot support social values (as social values) in any
    other sense than society "supports" biology ...by "breeding"
    individuals to meet society's need (The Nazi obsession by race and
    genetics). The levels are oblivious for anything but self-interests. It's
    only from the high vista of the MOQ that these level contexts are seen
    - most of all from where intellect stripped of its pompous self-image of
    "consciousness".

    > "We must understand that when a society undermines intellectual
    > freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it
    > represses biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely
    > morally good. These moral bads and goods are not just "customs." They
    > are as real as rocks and trees. " [Lila p.355-356]

    This understanding is only possible when "thinking-logic" has moved
    on to the MOQ level. The MOQ as an (integrated) intellectual pattern
    is untenable. Your "election campaign" claiming Q-intellect's values as
    your base while (accusing) Platt of Q-social sympathy is always fun to
    watch, but I think Platt sees this "MOQ beyond intellect" aspect from
    where intellect is taken down a peg or two.

    IMO
    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 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 11:07:09 GMT