[MD] Overturning Hierarchies

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi John, no takers on this thought yet ?

Pragmatically there are situations where rank / authority / elite
status (and the symbols of this status) just help things run smoothly
(save our time and brain cells), but as you say it is an error to get
the cause & effect the wrong way round. Quality comes before symbols
of rank, before anything.

Quality can defined only in experience (ie not in words) - yes.
Which is why so much time here is spent "defining" experience ... in
words, naturally !
Getting a better understanding of quality in "pure experience" in
Jamesian / Radical Empiricist terms - DMB's quest to get the MoQ a
firmer footing in mainstream academic philosophy. All power to his
elbow.
.
Even here / my conclusion - we will never get to a satisfactory
definition in words (there is an inherent paradox / catch-22 in the
"rationality" of that). Success will be achieving a collage of
thoughts and impressions, borne out of the experience of attempting
the definition. (That's where I see the Matt / DMB debate at the
moment.)

Ah yes - Idolatry - hence the Barfield connection - what goes around,
comes around.
Regards
Ian

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:52 PM, John Carl<ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a subject I've touched on many times as being at the heart of most
> problems in the world and in the MoQ - issues with hierarchical dominance
> patterns wherein Value is subordinated to hierarchical position instead of
> the other way around like it should be.
>
> Idolatry, in other words.
>
> When you think you can fight because your belt is black, rather than
> sporting a black belt earned through demonstration of your ability to fight.
>
>
> Except of course, when fighting, nobody gives a damn about belt color or
> degree earned or social accolades from weak academic mills of
> ego-reinforcement;  all that matters is in the moment.
>
>
> Thinking that it is ALWAYS more moral for the Doctor to kill the germ.  Even
> if the Doctor is evil.
>
> Getting caught up in a tangle of social communication vs intellectual
> disputation that can NEVER be completely semantically untangled - A sloppy
> cut with a dull knife is all that we could ever hope for in our splits
> between human social patterns and human intellectual.
>
> When a bright young man studies Physics so he can get a job, get married and
> have kids, his intellect is striving to earn a high social position so he
> can breed.  Who is really "highest" in this formulation and how does
> assuming a 1,2,3,4 direction toward Quality actually serve Dynamic
> Quality?   Other than a blind simplisticism?
>
> Above are my questions and challenges.  Below  are my answers and solutions.
>
> Morality is defined at all levels by "that which produces more DQ"  and
> especially important is the big "D".  Those patterns which increase the
> choices available are the higher quality patterns.  Thus intellectual
> critique of society is moral because it increases the dynamic opportunity of
> the society to choose.  It can now choose between change and not-change
> because alternatives have been brought to its attention.  Any society that
> suppresses the intellectual dynamic is immoral, but any society that
> suppresses the social or biological dynamic is just as, if not more,
> immoral.
>
> Ultimately, Nature is the source of Quality and man's highest purpose is in
> promoting and choosing the more dynamic on every level, and the purpose of
> intellect is to serve this need and increase the dynamicism of Nature.
>
> There is an immorality that increases with man's growing intellectual
> distance from Nature.  This stems, I believe, from the roots of word,
> language and culture that are based in Nature and natural relationships
> which form the symbolic backdrop for man's understanding.
>
> When the source is left far behind in abstraction and self-referent virtual
> realities, bad  social patterns dominate.   Large corporations influence
> worldviews for profit motive.   Value Free Metaphysics runs amok and for the
> masses lacking values, the Giant's Machine is glad to provide a temporary
> one - materialism.
>
> Change is needed. More dynamic choices are available to be explicated.
> Quality cannot be defined in words, only in life.  I guess if you wanna say
> life=experience, then I'll go along with that -  Quality cannot be defined
> in words, only in experience.
>
> yeah.  Works for me.  Maybe I'll make it my mantra.  Need to shorten it up a
> bit...  Quality is not words but experience.  Nah, that is defining Quality
> in a word, "experience"  that doesn't work.  The key I left out there was
> "defined"  The action of a definer or describer is what I'm defining and
> describing.  Quality can't be described in words, only in experience.  Yeah,
> that's pretty good.  That sums it up pretty simply and elegantly for me.
> Maybe now I get it.  Krimel!  I've joined the AwGi cult!
>
> Quality can be defined only in experience.
> 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/
>