From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2004 - 20:11:22 BST
Hi Arlo
Pretty much agree with your stuff here.
But should we hate those who fail to recognise
our quality. If we were made to be the slaves
of some master would we be right to hate him/her?
Say they were pretty primitive, except perhaps
rather biologically big and successful.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: MD Re: Love and hate in the MOQ
> Hi David,
>
>
> At 06:38 17/07/2004, you wrote:
> >Hi Arlo
> >
> >Is not agape required for us to act
> >more intellectually and with more
> >consideration of values, good, quality,
> >hence love is that value that enable one
> >to recognise the quality in others, and the
> >world.
>
> Hmmm.... I'd say instead that Philia is that value that enables one to
> recognize the quality in others, and Agape is the that value that enables
> one to see quality in the world. (Eros, then, is the value that enables
one
> to recognize quality in biology).
>
> Maybe, in more MOQ terms, "Philia" is a response to social quality.
"Agape"
> is a response to Intellectual Quality, "Eros" is a response to biological
> quality.
>
>
> >Is hate something to do with
> >the failure of the other to recognise our/my
> >quality?
>
> I think if we separate out love into "eros, philia, agape" (for each of
the
> MOQ levels, except "inorganic"), "hate" (as we are talking about it) seems
> to me to be, as you imply here, the antithesis of philia, and in our
> vocabulary has less (if anything) to do with eros or agape.
>
> I don't know if I'd characterize it as a "failure of the other to
> recognize", because this implies to me passivity. I'd say "hate" is the
> persistent belief in the low quality of the other despite the presence of
> contradictory or disputive evidence.
>
>
>
> >Even when the virus kills us when
> >can be conscious of its quality, but we may
> >value our own quality more and kill it first.
>
>
> But we don't "hate" it, do we? Or is this what you mean when you say....
>
> >Hate is linked to a narrow and local perspective
> >that does not see the interaction/conflict of different
> >levels of SQ as necessary and containing quality
> >at some level if not at all levels.
>
> By understanding the quality-as-perceived by the germ, we would no longer
> "hate" the germ, even as we admitted to valuing our Quality higher, right?
>
>
> >The tiger has quality
> >and beauty, but we kill it if it threatens the quality
> >of human life. But can we resolve these conflicts from
> >love rather than out of hate?
>
>
> Hmmm... I think, in this example, if we reached a true state of
> understanding the tiger's quality, we would work to find ways to allow to
> tiger to continue while protecting us from the tiger. Killing the tiger,
> would be an absolute last, but necessary step, if no other solution could
> be reached. Thus I would think that resolving the conflict out of love
> would look for other alternatives first prior to a last solution killing
of
> the tiger.
>
> Arlo
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 Jul 20 2004 - 20:32:06 BST