[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[X Acto]

Hello Steve,

I think we mix in meaning, while I agree that what is percieved is shaped
by culture, and that Moq is not a free ticket to a gods eye view, it however
does provide a standard in which all human cultures may be understood 
and measured in relation to their values.
Keeping in mind, that the intellectual level of a culture is defined by that culture.
its highest patterns being those that sustain social and biological quality.

I do not think this effects our culturally derived perception as our culturally
derived understanding.
It informs us that our cultural values of intellect are not THE value of intellect.


Moq in this manner may be applied to any cultural context

I really feel that it's most profound impact is on human values as a whole

which break down universally in terms of four static levels of quality.



-Ron






 


----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:52:16 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ

Hi Ron,


> Steve,
>  I thought the premise behind the 4 levels was not only better understanding
> but
> the breaking of the paralysis of cultural relativism, and relativism in general,
> I got the feeling throughout Lila that that was the problem western society faced.
> 
> and the arguement Pragmatism lacked
> 
> you know
> 
> virtue, excellence..betterness...Quality
> 
> virtually both books are about the feelings of emptiness and detachment
> objectivism unleashes in the form of moral relativism.
> 
> I agree it is not about what is true, but it IS about what is better.
> 
> beliefs are justified through use in expereince otherwise they have no value.
> 
> what else would be discussed than what values are better than others?
> 
> and what framework would yield those answers but MoQ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how "I think therefore I am" figures into the conversation
> in this regard.


Steve:
I was referring to this bit from Lila:
"Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived.  Nature tells us only what our culture predisposes us to hear.  The selection of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore is made on the basis of social patterns of value, or when it is not, on the basis of biological patterns of value. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was a historically shattering declaration of independence of the intellectual level of evolution from the social level of evolution, but would he have said it if he had been a seventeenth century Chinese philosopher?  If he had been, would anyone in seventeenth century China have listened to him and called him a brilliant thinker and recorded his name in history?  If Descartes had said, "The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am," he would have been correct."

The MOQ is not immune to this sort of historical contingency either and so then is also culturally derived. This is not a dig on the MOQ. Everything is culturally derived. At least the MOQ includes an understanding of that fact.

Twentieth century liberalism exists, therefore Pirsig thinks, therfore the MOQ exists.

Best,
Steve
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/