From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 07:18:43 BST
Not sure what you mean by "talking past", is that different from trying to
comunicate? Or is that what happens when one person doesn't want to listen
to what the other person is trying to say?
> >msh says:
> >If your definition of good is correct, then all that is necessary to
> >know what is good is to look around in your society and see what
> >everybody else is doing. No?
>
>That would show what is moral, but good is not the same thing. Moral
>is just average, normal behavior, whereas good is like the direction
>that people attempt to go, however far they actually get.
>
>msh says:
>Well, then we're just playing word games, I'm afraid, and may be
>wasting one another's time. In the MoQ, at the social level, "moral
>behavior" means "good behavior," or "excellent behavior" or even "DQ
>inspired behavior." If all you mean by "moral" is "normal" or
>"average" or "what most people do," then, in most of this exchange,
>we're just talking past one another.
Moral behavior is good behavior, it is good when patterns are repeated and
morality is strengthened. It's not necessarily DQ behavior or excellent
behavior, though it is moral to attempt to be excellent and do what you
think is right (DQ behavior). People would not say it was immoral, unless
someone's idea of DQ or excellent was quite out of line with what other
people thought.
If there is a moral pattern that we don't think is good, like say cheating,
or driving SUV's and over-eating, it is us that is out of line with
morality. We have to be immoral in order to change it to whatever we think,
for whatever reason, would be better behavior.
Lila should make it clear that moral patterns are not just what we think of
as good patterns, they are things like scorpions getting in your shoe at
night and mudslides when it rains too much. No one says it is good when
people die of old age, but that's the biological moral pattern, and Lila
tells us that it is exactly the same kind of pattern as social moral
patterns. They repeat because it is good when they repeat. The value is a
deeper more satisfying value than merely what we think would benefit us
materially, it comes from an assurance that the world makes sense and is
reasonable and we know it. That is better and more valuable than money or
people behaving the way we want them to.
>msh says:
>I'm not sure I disagree here. But I'm interested in exploring the
>possibility that the MoQ, or some variation of it, can be used not
>just as a "playing field" but a playing field with some rules that
>might serve as a kind of guide toward the "best" behavior. Which is
>why I'm interested in the "MOQ and Moral Evolution" thread.
Yeah, I don't think it is helpful there. Would your idea of what the best
behavior is really be different from your MoQ-based analysys, or would your
MoQ based analysys just bend to fit your idea? It might help bring clarity
sometimes, but so might consulting an astrologer. For me, it is helpful in
showing how everything is morality and how important it is to respect
morality and contninue to expect morality to continue, for morality's sake.
>msh says:
>I agree that your example demonstrates what you say, as is usually
>the case when any of us offer examples to support our positions. But
>how about if instead of talking about "Capitalism" and "Some
>alternative ism" as IDEAS, we talk about what effects these ideas
>have, on real people, when they are implemented at the social level?
>I bet we could find very real "MOQ-moral" differences between the
>two. And in this sense I've not given up on the MoQ, or some
>variant, as a useful, moral metaphysics.
How would you apply the MoQ? As long as by real people you take a long term
view, and keep certain principles of human dignity and freedom in mind, and
don't get influenced by a few sob stories, then sure, we should look at the
effects ideas have on people and do what we think would be best. I don't
see how a particular metaphysics would be better suited to that than some
other one. Our politics are already pretty well formed, I think, and the
MoQ hasn't changed anybody's politics, that I've seen here, anyway.
>msh says:
>Your next three paragraphs, elided above, make for interesting
>reading, but I don't see described in them the "usefulness" you speak
>of in the first. This I would be very interested in. Can you
>elaborate?
Um, maybe interesting would have been a better word than useful, then. I
guess useful in terms of understanding that all things are moral patterns,
so we shouldn't disparage morality, as it is the very earth we walk on. I
think that is useful, to respect moralty.
>jm:
>You might say it is irrelevant, but I think it isn't, as this sort of
>morality operates at a deeper level, on a less self-conscious level
>than that.
>
>msh says:
>As this imparts to yourself a better understanding of what I do and
>why, than I myself have, I don't see how I can reply.
Well, I don't understand it either. I'm just saying that cultural patterns
influence us, and we aren't usually conscious of exactly when or how our
influences manifest themselves. Do you feel you understand why you do
everything you do?
>jm:
>What else is there?
>
>msh says:
>Dynamic Quality.
oh right. I still say it's all cultural patterns that tell us what is DQ
and what is just crappy.
>jm:
>People could see that quality of life varied, and they could see
>which behaviors helped and which hindered. What their goal was was
>up to them, and whoever was most persuasive won.
>
>msh says:
>But what caused the quality of life to vary?
Various behaviors in various circumstances.
>Why were some behaviors
>helpful and some not? That is, why were some "better" some not?
They fit in with other patterns in harmonious ways, so they were
appreciated.
>Anyway, I think this point, and all the rest from here down, is just
>us talking past one another, as I suggested in my first comment. But
>lemme go one more...
>
> >msh says:
> >Well, it's nice that you think I get it, but I'm not so sure I do.
> >Are you among the "most" who think "most" don't understand morality
> >and are stupid? If not, then by your own definition, you are
> >immoral. No?
>
>I see. I'm immoral in that I have a very different idea of what
>moral means, and moral in that I am like most people in believing
>that no one else understands morality correctly. I'm a special case
>though, most people think it is the common people who are not moral,
>who need their enlightenment to be moral, whereas I think it is the
>elitists who don't use the term morality correctly, and who don't see
>that most people are, by defintinon, always moral.
>
>msh says:
>Yeah. Talking past... Thanks, Johnny...
Are you sure it's that bad? I feel I'm responding to your questions, it
just may take a while to meet in the middle.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://youroffers.msn.com
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 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 07:29:17 BST