Re: MD When is a society a good society?

From: Destination Quality (planetquality@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 16:29:23 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Quality and In-e-quality & Conflict"

    From: Leland Jory <ljory@mts.net>
    Subject: Re: MD When is a society a good society?
    Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:23:26 -0600

    Paul Turner wrote:

    I think the MOQ makes an interesting contribution to the discussion
    of individual freedom by categorising it according to evolution. With
    espect to your comment above, individual freedom can be separated
    out into biological, social and intellectual freedom. With this
    categorisation in mind we can begin by saying that the MOQ supports
    *intellectual* freedom from the state but not *biological* freedom.
    This is a broad categorisation which needs some filling in, but doing so may
    help bring clarity to a discussion around what constitutes a *good*
    relationship between individuals and government?

    >Actually, that's basically what I meant. I just didn't say it as well as
    >you. I do believe there are individual freedoms on the social level (as
    >oxymoronic as that sounds), and feel that the MOQ would state it is more
    >moral for a society to inhibit an individual's social freedoms than for an
    >individual to infringe on the social structure (as long as intellectual
    >freedoms aren't being hampered). Wow, this is getting confusing.
    >
    >--
    >Leland Jory :^{)>
    >Cafeteria Spiritualist and Philosopher

    hi there how are you all?

    pssst, i will let you in on a secret - there are no levels just as there are
    no Kantian categories. Do you know why? Because they are static, do you know
    what happens to static 'entities' in the struggle for life, or in the
    struggle for truth? They do not survive. Panta rei. What does survive? That
    which is mobile, insecure, refutable, aposteriori, dynamic. How do we judge
    apriori, we cannot. ho to discern degeneracy or DQ, I'm sorry my philosophic
    friends, we can do nothing more but wait and see. A priori levels are
    platonic forms, Pirsig indeed is a platonist, a neoplatonist actually. Does
    the name Plotinus ring a bell? So much in a few sentences and so much more
    to tell. Ok one secret for the Skutvikians among you: there is no
    subject-object thinking, how could there be such thinking when there is no
    subject?

    chris

    _________________________________________________________________
    Hotmail en Messenger on the move
    http://www.msn.nl/communicatie/smsdiensten/hotmailsmsv2/

    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 Mar 05 2004 - 17:08:31 GMT