[MD] Art for our sakes ?

[ian glendinning]

Thanks SA, if nothing else, ...
I will therefore have achieved my objective in posting it ;-)

I'm a relative newcomer to this forum, 4 or 5 years (?), but even I've
been around several of these loops a thousand times.

Ian

On 2/20/08, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>    I haven't looked at these yet, but I will.  I must
> comment though.  I'm very glad you posted this.  A
> certain repeating of the same ol' is getting this
> forum stuck for the moment, you know, was it s/o or a
> rabbit that ran in front of me last night and then say
> this over and over again a thousand, thousand times,
> was it s/o or a rabbit that ran in front of me last
> night, was it s/o or a rabbit, etc...
>
>
> needin' a break from this,
> SA
>
>
>
> Ian:
> > Take a look at this beautiful anthology of poems and
> > art works from Alan Rayner.
> >
> http://www.inclusional-research.org/furtherreading.php
> > Download "Natural Communion" (8.7 Meg, but worth
> > it.)
> >
> > The quality missing from objective reality is
> > dynamic process - Dynamic Quality.
> >
> > Read the "Preview" too ...
> > "Despite the claims of its advocates to the
> > contrary, objective logic and
> > methodology is not based rigorously on evidence but
> > on lazy presupposition ..."
> >
> > As well as the poems and paintings ...
> > Enjoy
> > Ian
> >
> > On 2/12/08, Steve Peterson <stevenkpeterson at mac.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Platt,
> > >
> > >
> > > [Steve]
> > > How do you argue that property is part of the
> > > essential nature of man?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Do you consider yourself a Deist?
> > > >
> > > > I consider myself a Mysterian. But Deist will
> > do.
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve:
> > > I had never heard of that term Wikipedia says:
> > > "New Mysterianism is a philosophy proposing that
> > certain problems will
> > > never be explained or at the least cannot be
> > explained by the human
> > > mind at its current evolutionary stage. The
> > problem most often referred
> > > to is the hard problem of consciousness; i.e. how
> > to explain sentience
> > > and qualia and their interaction with
> > consciousness."
> > >
> > > Is this what you believe?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Steve:
> > > >> In a liberal society, rationales can be
> > criticized. Religious dogma
> > > >> we are
> > > >> told is above criticism since it is a matter of
> > faith.
> > > >
> > > > What is dogma to you is belief to others. I
> > argue that all belief
> > > > includes
> > > > an element of faith.
> > >
> > > Steve:
> > > We've been through this before. I think we agreed
> > that the use of term
> > > faith to say that it is a virtue to hold certain
> > beliefs outside the
> > > realm of rational questioning is bad.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>> Steve:
> > > >>>> The other point is that it is not only
> > happiness but suffering that
> > > >>>> Harris says we need to consider in judging
> > morality. Certainly
> > > >>>> religion continues to be a great source of
> > suffering.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Platt:
> > > >>> Compared to the state as a source of
> > suffering, religion is heaven.
> > > >>> Statists tend to forget that Communism and
> > National Socialism were
> > > >>> responsible for over 125 million deaths in the
> > last century.
> > > >>
> > > >> Steve:
> > > >> I still see this as a non sequitur. It is
> > certainly not an argument
> > > >> that faith (as the idea that it is good to
> > belief things without
> > > >> reason or
> > > >> evidence) really is a virtue.
> > > >
> > > > Not a non sequitur if suffering is your
> > criterion of evil as it seems
> > > > to be
> > > > for Harris, not to mention Reagan..
> > >
> > > Steve:
> > > But Harris would agree that Communism and National
> > Socialism are evil.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Steve:
> > > >> I am not necessarily arguing that religion
> > needs to be dispensed
> > > >> with. I am
> > > >> simply saying that beliefs must be evaluated
> > based on intellectual
> > > >> quality
> > > >> rather than accepted on authority of magic
> > books. If religion really
> > > >> is
> > > >> wroth anything (and I think it is) then there
> > will be something of
> > > >> value
> > > >> left once dogma is rejected in favor if reason.
> > >
> > > Platt:
> > > > Your faith in reason can be viewed as dogmatic
> > as religious belief.
> > >
> > > Steve:
> > > What have I said that suggests a dogmatic belief?
> > >
> > > Platt:
> > > > Speaking of John Locke, would you agree with
> > what he wrote in "Civil
> > > > Government?"
> > > >
> > > > "To understand political power aright, and
> > derive it from its
> > > > original, we
> > > > must consider what estate all men are naturally
> > in, and this is , a
> > > > state
> > > > of perfect freedom to order their actions, and
> > dispose of their
> > > > possessions
> > > > and persons as they think fit, within the bounds
> > of the law of Nature,
> > > > without asking leave or depending upon the will
> > of any other."
> > > >
> > > > To me this sets out the fundamental  battle
> > between the intellectual
> > > > and
> > > > social levels as outlined in the MOQ.
> > >
> > > Steve:
> > > Locke reasons based on SOM premises. According to
> > Northrop, he reasons
> > > that as mental substances we are completely free.
> > So why would we want
> > > to participate in a government that will
> > necessarily be to give up some
> > > liberty? Locke says that the only reason we do
> > this is because we can't
> > > defend our private property on our own.
> > >
> > > This thinking is completely at odds with the MOQ
> > which says that the
> > > "free" individual that Locke is talking about does
> > not exist without
> > > social patterns. Locke sees that man is subject to
> > the law of Nature
> > > (inorganic and biological patterns), but does not
> > see the evolutionary
> > > roll of social patterns. He sees social patterns
> > as imposed and
> > > corrupting a "free" man rather than man as being a
> > product of social
> > > evolution as well.
> > >
> > > Pirsig addresses this fallacy here:
> > > "Is society good or is society evil? ...The idea
> > that, "man is born
> > > free but is everywhere in chains" was never true.
> > There are no chains
> > > more vicious than the chains of biological
> > necessity into which every
> > > child is born. Society exists primarily to free
> > people from these
> > > biological chains. It has done that job so
> > stunningly well
> > > intellectuals forget the fact and turn upon
> > society with a shameful
> > > ingratitude for what society has done."
> > >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>      ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> 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/
>