From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 18:03:53 BST
On 10 Jun 2004 at 6:18, johnny moral wrote:
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:
Yes, it may be when one person doesn't want to listen to what the
other person is trying to say. It also commonly occurs when people
use the same words to mean different things. And it can occur big
time when the difference in meaning is not recognized, which might
happen for a number of reasons, including when one person doesn't
want to listen to what the other person is trying to say.
My idea, at this time, is that "moral" behavior at the social level
is behavior fully informed by DQ, to the extent permitted by the
society's current institutions. My idea is that everyone may avail
themselves of DQ to this extent, but that not everyone does, for a
variety of reasons, including that SQ, which is both Static Quality
and Status Quo, is more comfortable and less fearful for THEM.
>msh said:
>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.
jm:
Moral behavior is good behavior, it is good when patterns are
repeated and morality is strengthened...
If there is a moral pattern that we don't think is good...
Lila should make it clear that moral patterns are not just what we
think of as good patterns, ...
msh says:
I agree with your three paragraphs, elided above, if I use your
definition of "moral" rather than mine.
>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.
pm:
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?
msh says:
It wouldn't have to be my MoQ-based analysis, it could be anybody's,
which is why I've asked people in that thread to give it a shot. Wim
objects to my list of possibly immoral institutions because he thinks
he needs to compare them to something else, in order to proceed. I
say fine. Compare systems that provide health care for profit with
those that fund it for everyone from a community base. Which of the
two is of higher social morality, using DQ as its measure?
Would I change my mind and not the metaphysics? I can say only that
I have changed my mind numerous times, about a wide variety of
issues, when confronted with persuasive evidence and argument; I did
not change the rules of logic and evidence. What I'm looking for
here is evidence and argument within the framework of the MoQ,
because that's what this forum is about.
jm:
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 completely, using my idea of morality, as previously
described.
>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.
jm:
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.
msh says:
Hmmm. I agree. But I suspect that your idea of sob stories might be
considerably different than mine. Maybe not. I'm pretty sure that
Platt's idea of sob stories and mine would differ dramatically.
Anyway, I would apply the MoQ by examining goals, and possible
actions and results. If a goal is seen to be DQ inspired then, if
one action is likely to result in the mass slaughter of defenseless,
non-threatening organisms, while another, directed toward the same
goal, is not, then it is "morally imperative" that we choose the
second.
But this doesn't mean that another system of thought won't lead us to
a different decision. But this forum is about the MoQ, although it
seems that the MoQ is often very far in the background.
jm:
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:
See immediately above.
>msh said:
>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?
jm:
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.
msh says:
Talking past, as described at the beginning of this post.
>msh said:
>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.
jm:
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?
msh says:
Absolutely not. I am, however, suggesting that it's likely that I
know more about what I do, and why, than someone who is not me.
>jm:
>What else is there?
>
>msh says:
>Dynamic Quality.
jm:
Oh right. I still say it's all cultural patterns that tell us what
is DQ and what is just crappy.
msh says:
And I see DQ as something (bad word) that, under the best societal
circumstances, will agitate the society's SQ patterns toward higher
Quality.
>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?
jm:
Various behaviors in various circumstances.
msh says:
Again, what causes the variations? What drives people to try
different things?
>Why were some behaviors
>helpful and some not? That is, why were some "better" some not?
jm:
They fit in with other patterns in harmonious ways, so they were
appreciated.
msh says:
And I say that this "harmony" is another name for DQ.
We ended with...
>msh says:
>Yeah. Talking past... Thanks, Johnny...
jm:
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.
msh says:
Maybe not. We'll see if you agree with my ideas regarding "talking
past."
Thanks, Johnny.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
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 - 18:00:02 BST