[MD] moq_discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 17

[Platt Holden]

Hi Amirman,

> Hi Platt
> 
> I agree with your points about moral values coming
> into play with regard to behaviour.
> 
> But there's two problems that I can see you don't
> address. One is how do you evaluate the moral value of
> children who have potential, but not yet the
> transforming behaviour of say nobel prize winning
> scientist or a Nelso Mandela? The MOQ is not strictly
> ulitarian though some may believe it to be so.

Babies experience pure DQ. So morally they are at the top. That's why 
abortion is such a travesty. 

> Secondly, before you label someone "terrorist" you
> have to define first what it is. Was the atomic bomb
> drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a terrorist act by
> killing innocent civilians and creating terror in the
> society? Or how about Kissinger's carpet bombing of
> Cambodia? Or the USs sponsoring coups in Iran and
> Chile in the '50s to depose a democratically elected
> leaders?

Keep in mind that Hitler was democratically elected. As for the 
definition of a terrorist the following is as good as any:

"One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to 
achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-
combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts 
the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and 
consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common 
criminals." From: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm 

> As a matter of fact, politicians and lawmakers have
> refused to define a "terrorirst" because it might
> catch them in the net.

You don't see many politicians and lawmakers in the West cowering 
behind masks.

> A value judgment is a bunch of
> hot air derived from an egotistical form of
> self-preservation.

We make thousands of value judgments every day from the minute we wake 
up in the morning and decide to get out of bed. If that's an 
egotistical form of self-preservation, we're both guilty.  

> It relinquishes to biology what
> should properly be a social realm. The social realm
> recognizes that cooperation supercedes the divide and
> conquer concept.

Right. The problem is it takes at least two to cooperate. That's why the free
market, in addition to being more Dynamic than the alternatives, works so
well. It acknowledges man's innate selfish and competitive nature and utilizes
human nature to the mutual benefit of all -- the U.S. being the shining 
example of the result in producing a higher standard of living than any 
other economic system in the world, bar none. 

> And hypocrisy is the most socially
> inept value there may be.
 
Personally I don't find hypocrisy to be immoral. It's a disguised form 
of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem whereby the person making an 
assertion is judged rather than the validity of her assertion. The 
alcoholic who advises her children not to drink excessively is being a 
hypocrite, but her advice is valid.

Cheers,
Platt





> Cheers,
> amirman
> 
> 
> --- moq_discuss-request at moqtalk.org wrote:
> 
> > Send moq_discuss mailing list submissions to
> > 	moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > 
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> > visit
> > 
> >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> > 'help' to
> > 	moq_discuss-request at moqtalk.org
> > 
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > 	moq_discuss-owner at moqtalk.org
> > 
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> > is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of moq_discuss digest..."
> > 
> > 
> > Today's Topics:
> > 
> >    1. Re: God is dead. (beauteak4u at aol.com)
> >    2. Windfall (beauteak4u at aol.com)
> >    3. Re: Just coincidence? (Peter Corteen)
> >    4. Re: Unreality of Equality (Platt Holden)
> >    5. Re: Ham & swiss cheese (beauteak4u at aol.com)
> >    6. Re: Just coincidence? (Peter Corteen)
> >    7. Re: Ham & swiss cheese (Heather Perella)
> >    8. Re: Julian Baggini Interview with Pirsig
> > (David M)
> > 
> > 
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >
> > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 06:54:39 -0500 > From:
> beauteak4u at aol.com > Subject: Re: [MD] God is dead. > To:
> moq_discuss at moqtalk.org > Message-ID: >
> <8C80D998D338569-9F0-1CFB3 at mblk-r24.sysops.aol.com> > Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Sometimes simple is god, i mean good.
>  >  > -----Original Message----- > From: David M
> <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org > Sent: Fri, 3
> Mar 2006 22:43:17 -0000 > Subject: Re: [MD] God is dead. > > > a good
> point. > > DM > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From:
> <beauteak4u at aol.com> > To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> > Sent: Friday,
> March 03, 2006 2:30 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] God is dead. > > > > Isn't
> "God" whatever you say it is...or not? > > > > John Lennon said: God is
> a concept by which we > measure out pain.... > > Is Lennon wrong? > > >
> > Smith > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MarshaV
> <marshalz at charter.net> > > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org > > Sent: Thu, 02
> Mar 2006 17:51:00 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [MD] God is dead. > > > > > >
> At 05:03 PM 3/2/2006, Ian wrote: > >>Marsha, from one atheist to another
> ... > >> > >>Perhaps therefore our "god" is nature ? > >> > >>Ian > > >
> > God is a word.  Nature is an experience. > > > > Marsha > > > >   > >
> > > moq_discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > >
> Archives: > > >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > >
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > moq_discuss mailing
> list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > >
> Archives: > > >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > >
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > moq_discuss
> mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >
> Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > >
> ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006
> 07:02:07 -0500 > From: beauteak4u at aol.com > Subject: [MD] Windfall > To:
> moq_discuss at moqtalk.org > Message-ID: >
> <8C80D9A9866E1DE-9F0-1CFBA at mblk-r24.sysops.aol.com> > Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Could a sudden windfall ( money )
> made available to > MOQ.org and it's members > value ( not cause ) a
> change? Could it value a > quantum leap to a place where others, maybe
> even > powerful others might take notice and listen? >  > Who would we
> need to target? >  > Smith >  > > > ------------------------------ > >
> Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:15:53 +0000 > From: "Peter
> Corteen" <psigenics at googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [MD] Just
> coincidence? > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org > Message-ID: >
> <48b5e6d40603040415h2be722e2v at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi Joseph, > > my mention of
> spontaneous chrystallisation and > monkeys washing potatoes was >
> because I was reminded of them by your examples - I > didn't mean to
> suggest > that  when two people say the same thing at the same > time
> that is caused by > chemical chrystallisations!  I have shared  that >
> communication experience > many times too; it is a happy sensation and
> is a > great example of the power > of all four of Pirsig's static
> levels of quality > forming a foundation strong > and flexible enough
> for such a dynamic new event. > That Lyall Watson book was > called
> 'Supernature' - I don't know whether you will > still be able to find >
> it, I read it  about 35 years ago; I don't > recommend it, though I was
> very > impressed (gullible) at the time.  I don't know > whether the
> spontaneous > chrystallisation phenomenon is real - it was just >
> something I read about a > long time ago, perhaps I shouldn't have
> mentioned > them but I wasn't sure > about the focus of your email and
> was being > provocative I suppose. > > You said 'What is mind if not a
> collection of > values?' - I like that. I > don't think the mind is
> limited to the brain - we > are psycho-physical > organisms and have
> sensation throughout the body - > indeed even beyond the > body through
> sight, hearing and touch; to a certain > extend I can partially >
> relocate my self or mind from it's usual home (the > brain) to say my
> hand > merely by focusing my attention there. > > I don't think that
> when animals sense an impending > earthquake or volcano > they are
> displaying supernatural abilities - I > watched a docu-drama about >
> Krakatoa recently and it seems that the scientists > in that area
> 'sensed' the > volcano months before the local animals did through >
> their scientific > devices. What I mean by supernatural is, as the word
> > suggests, === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/