[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[markhsmit]

Hi Andre,
Thanks for your post.  I think Squonk is someone else, but I can be Squonk
too.

The reason I am interested in proposed uses for MOQ, is that
Morality is brought into question.  If there is a philosophy which
can explain the direction of Morality, I would find it both useful
and dangerous.  Useful because it provides an answer to many
questions.  Dangerous because, like the teachings of the mystic
Jesus Christ, it can be used for political gain.

It is fine to sit on the sidelines and use MOQ purely for intellectual
pursuit, and thus create another chapter in the history of 
metaphysics.  It is another thing to derive from this philosophy
a method for directing society.  We have seen such abuse
of Darwin's proposals (even by Darwin himself).  The fact that
MOQ claims to be dealing with Evolution in the sense that
it is something beyond our control and directional, will provide
politicians justification for abuse.  

If so many things can be explained by MOQ, does this impact our
day to day behavior?  And if so, is this something we would want
others to realize so that they will march in step?

Cheers,
Mark


On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:50:42 AM, "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
From:   "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
Subject:    [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
Date:   November 6, 2009 10:50:42 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Mark:
Gee Andre, I can't tell if you believe that the method of MOQ has a future
in creating human harmony or not. Your post seems to have been side tracked
by the psycho-emotional. Glad you got that out, though. I guess we do
still have a long way to go.

Andre:
Hello Mark (or is it Squonk?...I like Squonk better but if you prefer???).
I realise my answer to your query isn't very satisfactory...as it is very
static. I placed it as a view from 'without' i.e. outside the MoQ. I am not
very happy with it either therefore this addendum.

Of course you were looking for signposts within the MoQ to lead to 'human
harmony'.

This is a very important question and should be a concern to us all. I have
been perusing the archives and, because I am relatively young to the discuss
(meaning there remains a very big difference between the theory [which I do
not master] and the empirical/pragmatic experience thereof I feel I need
more time).
I am hinting at Northrop's 'by postulation' identification( the 'typical'
Western interpretation to [ the response to] the 'undifferentiated aesthetic
continuum' (Quality) and the Eastern interpretation which is direct ( i.e
without postulation).

The Eastern 'attitude' laughs, for example at Bodvar's postulation that
everything intellectual is s/o. It is a postulation, i.e. it is arrived at
intellectually,conceptually. His is a strong argument but I sometimes wonder
if it is only in Bodvar's mind or 'real' (i.e does it have Quality
grounding??')

Values have replaced (by postulation and therefore as a conceptualisation)
subjects and objects and as such have increased the intellectual freedom
with which to play with these (again) postulated concepts. But I have not
resolved, for myself (if this is at all possible), the implications.

I do know that there exists a huge difference between the ZMM experience of
Quality and Lila's abstraction of this experience into static patterns of
quality. I.e the Dynamic and static experience/ conceptualisation. ( Bodvar
will get a heart attact hearing this!!!).

Pirsig has lifted parts of the veil when he suggests that thousands of
things fall into place when looking through the MoQ glasses. For him...but
not (yet) for me. I am doing my best through my own analogues upon analogues
etc. etc.

You were around, I believe, when Paul Turner joined the MD. I really enjoy
his questioning and his probing into this idea (i.e looking at and
experiencing the world) through MoQ glasses. Especially given his 'two
theses' approach which Anthony ( using Nagarjuna's 'conventional' and
'empty' experience) endorses [ in his PhD] as two different was of: No 1
experiencing (the world) and No 2 talking/ writing (about the
world) within a MoQ context.

Let me stay with this for a bit. As your question is very valid and very
important.

It does not deserve a Wallmart/ Bank of America/FoX [a la Rupert
Murdoch response].( Murdoch was born Australian then switched nationalities
to enlarge his media empire and include 'America' . He is one of those
characters whom Pirsig, I am convinced, includes in his cant (i.e Murdoch's)
'supporting their own self- interest ( Lila, p 225).

Let's say I owe this one to this forum.

Kind regards
Andre
Ps: it may take a while though... .
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/