Re: MD the quality of racism

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Jun 29 2004 - 07:56:44 BST

  • Next message: gav: "Re: MD Social Marxism"

    Dear Gavin and Matt P. and others interested (Paul V.?),

    Matt P. asked 21 Jun 2004 04:09:24 +0000:
    'Would we be able to say that the human race is superior?'

    Gavin replied 21 Jun 2004 18:31:46 +1000:
    'superior to what? to other life? intuitively i say no. reflectively i say
    hmmmmm, no. ...
    but what of the social and intellectual levels? do they not provide
    justification for asserting that we are superior to those organisms that (by
    our reasoning) do not possess these HIGHER levels of value?
    no. these higher levels provide justification for following them over
    conflicting lower level (biological or inorganic) patterns within ourselves.
    ...
    it just seems like inexcuseable hubris to me, to view ourselves as superior
    to a thousand year old tree.'

    I think that according to the MoQ homo sapiens (i.e. the biological pattern
    of value that connects the 'human race') IS superior to other species in
    that it more consistently thumbs its nose at gravity and other inorganic
    'laws'. (See 'Lila' chapter 11.) In theory (I don't know about practise)
    eugenics and/or genetical manipulation can improve our biological pattern of
    value to more consistently thumb its nose at inorganic 'laws'. I wouldn't
    call such a 'homo cosmodeo' 'Godhead', but that's another discussion, which
    I reserve for the 'quality religion (cosmotheism)' thread.
    My point is, that MoQ allows, even requires, distinguishing between
    'superior' and 'inferior' WITHIN LEVELS AND BETWEEN THE LEVELS AS A WHOLE.
    Problems occur when we try to evaluate incomparable patterns, i.e. a pattern
    of value that belongs to one level and a pattern of value that belongs to
    another level. Some of those problems are already visible in 'Lila'; Pirsig
    is not immune to what's according to me a mistake.

    'Thumbing one's nose at inorganic laws' is not the only criterium for
    biological quality however. Being a harmonic element in ecosystems is
    another one and I'm not that certain that homo sapiens is superior in that
    respect...

    Supporting/enabling higher level patterns of value is yet another one. In
    that respect homo sapiens not only seems to be superior, but even unique
    (depending to some extent on definitions of these higher levels).

    Eugenics and/or genetic manipulation of human DNA are undesirable from my
    present (4th level and DQ) point of view. (Paul V., can you convince me in
    MoQish that these ARE desirable?)
    Apart from that I doubt that the 'races' cosmotheists probably distinguish
    (i.e. groups of people distinguishable by hereditary traits that originate
    in interbreeding, geographically or socially isolated populations and that
    are intellectually recognized as different by some) are a good basis for
    improving our biological pattern of value to more consistently thumb its
    nose at inorganic 'laws' or to be a more harmonic element in ecosystems. The
    hereditary traits I see mentioned as indicating a specific 'race' don't seem
    to be very relevant in that respect. They are almost certainly completely
    irrelevant to the ability to support/enable higher level patterns of value.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 29 2004 - 11:05:18 BST