[MD] Knots

[118]

>
> Hi Arlo,
>

Thanks for the response.  I agree, trying to compare times in history is
difficult and beset with opinions.  I believe the issue lies more in man's
apparent need to follow someone who professes the answer.  This only leads
to corrupted power.  If individual freedom is considered as a valuable
construct, such following of leaders is not valuable, and perhaps results in
immoral acts more often than not.

[Mark]
> Quality itself may be considered amoral, its expression in human behavior
> (and
> perhaps other things) is where morality ties in as a pointer.
>
> [Arlo]
> I would not word it this way. Quality is a moral force, but that
> "expression"
> is different as one climbs the MOQ's levels. A virus is behaving morally
> (from
> its vantage), and a doctor fighting it is acting morally from his vantage,
> a
> higher level. When a virus does kill a human it is "immoral" only from the
> vantage of the social and intellectual levels, from the biological level
> the
> virus is acting perfectly morally. This may appear to be "ammorality" from
> a
> birds eye view, but I think it better seen as "competing, or evolving,
> moral
> responses".
>
>
> [Mark]
I believe problems arise when one uses a human based morality to provide a
conceptual framework for such a thing.  If evolution is moral, it is also
destructive, and somewhat impersonal.  Morality then assumes a scientific
description which is intended to convey impersonal objective observations.
 However, as morality, it begs further clarification.

Cheers,
Mark

> 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
>