[MD] Relativism

[MarshaV]

Hi John,

Anybody ask you lately about your thoughts on improving and preserving 
the social good?  I'll ask.  John, what are your thoughts on improving and 
preserving the social good?    


Marsha




On May 25, 2010, at 12:07 AM, John Carl wrote:

> Ron, Bo and Mary,
> 
> Ron's quote below seems so simple, so profound and so easy to understand
> that the only possible reason I can guess for others missing it is the
> oldest bugaboo in existence - group task avoidance.
> 
> This group doesn't WANT to use the MoQ for its intended purpose of
> "dynamically improving and preserving good social patterns" because people
> in the group are too attached to their particular pet social patterns.  And
> dying to one's attachments involves sacrifice.
> 
> It's less painful to argue endlessly.
> 
> DQ can be painful.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> John
> 
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:17 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ron:
>> Lila ch.24
>> "What is the purpose of all this intellectual knowledge? the metaphysics of
>> Quality answers,"
>> the fundemental purpose of knowledge is to dynamically improve and
>> preserve society."
>> 
>> "Intellect can support static patterns of society without fear of
>> domination by carefully
>> distinguishing those moral issues that are social-biological from those
>> that are intellectual-social
>> and making sure there is no encroachment either way."
>> 
>> "whats good is freedom from domination by any static pattern."
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> Ron, I mean, I didn't make up the rules - Pirsig did.  He clearly
>>> defined the four levels as a hierarchy of values/morals.  He says each
>>> successive level originated in the one below.  He explains how they are
>>> all composed of static patterns of value - latched in response to
>>> Dynamic Quality - yet are all in a state of continual tension with each
>>> other.  I don't mean to be pedantic here, but to answer the question we
>>> need to be starting out on the same page and with all the too-ing and
>>> fro-ing in the forum, I'm not sure that we are.  Are these all the
>>> basic premises we have?  There's one more, but to my surprise I got
>>> flack for saying it a while back.  This puzzles me, so if someone would
>>> like to argue it out, we could start here. Pirsig said the levels are
>>> discrete sets of patterns of value that took off on a purpose of their
>>> own from their parent.  I think this is pretty clear from the
>>> literature, but someone, and sorry, but I don't remember who, took
>>> issue with this.
>> 
>> Ron:
>> It all depends on how you interpret it, he says that evolution is a high
>> quality
>> idea, he says that we may understand experience abit better if we broke
>> it down into four levels rather than two. If you interpet the levels in
>> terms
>> of objective existant fundemental constituants of reality which emerge
>> out of each other, then your understanding is going to be a bit different
>> than what others believe Pirsig is saying.
>> 
>> Pirsig states that the levels, morally take off on their own, but ,
>> it is useful and grounding to understand the point of departure
>> and basic purposes " but it doesent mean children should assassinate
>> their parents and it doesent mean intellectuals have to assassinate
>> society." the point is that they have drifted and gotten lost.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___