[MD] Overturning Hierarchies

[John Carl]

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi John, no takers on this thought yet ?



Just one, evidently


>
> 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),



Tell that to Galileo.

But my assertions weren't directed at human hierarchies of social power.
 I'm addressing the issue of people using static hierarchy in their moral
judgements.


>
> 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.


When it becomes so important to gain firmer footing in mainstream academic
philosophy that you're willing to throw the Quality of your metaphysics out
the window, then I have a problem.  We all have a problem.  Pragmatism
becomes a problem in a world of SOM.

What is SOM?  I've said before that it is a values-free metaphysics, but is
that ultimately true in people's lives?  Do people honestly live their life
with no value to guide them?  Of course not.  Such would be an insanity.
Since reason tells them there are no values, they supply their own.  The ego
comes to rule. SOM creates people who have no choice but to live by
subjective values in a social hierarchy.  They end up there guided by
pragmatic methods.

It is no way to live and nothing to build a metaphysic upon, and yet this
method and philosophical slavery continues to grow and take hold, even here
in this citadel of reason erected to combat it.


> 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.)
>

Wasn't it you that recommended the Erin McKean talk on definition?  Loved
that.  What was the prime conclusion to be drawn from her talk?  For me, it
was "Love makes things real".

And she was specifically talking about definitions when she made that point.


And btw, did you make the connection between  the "Love makes things real"
quote from the Velveteen Rabbit and "Quality creates reality" from the MoQ?
 Cuz I sure did.

But back to your point about "collage of thoughts and impression...."  In
order to make a collage, you need disparate elements - in this example,
differing points of view about a prime unity.   That is what I call a
"Quality Community".  It's a collage of individuals attempting the
definition and arguing almost endlessly.    I believe there is a
philosophical method that brings a cessation of argument and produces  this
Quality Community.  I believe there is a way through the wilderness.  I
believe there is a promised land, attainable to the traveller.

This belief is based on theory tested in experience and I intend to explain
the theory and point out the  method as we go along.  From there, it's up to
individual choice.


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

Ummm... ok.  Not sure what a "Barfield" is but I'm sure I can wiki anything
I don't know.

Interesting phenomena, this internet thing.  What used to take scholars in
universities years to study can be covered much more quickly when the access
to knowledge is instantaneous and ubiquitous.  We should actually be
witnessing the birth of a neo-renaissance all around us, by all rights.

My reference to idolatry comes from my reading of Eric Fromme's critique of
Karl Marx's Humanism, of all places.  But the concept originally comes, of
course, from the bible where I translate the term to mean subjugation of
value to social hierarchy.

Iconoclastically,

John





>
> 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/
> >
> 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/
>