[MD] The MoQ and Politics?

[Ian Glendinning]

Wow DMB, (Andy mentioned)

You are very sure of yourself to keep repeating that "amoral"
accusation, without ever commenting on what I actually say. The point
that starts with "My point if you're interested, is ..." Or any of the
references I make. It looks like dogma and ignorance. (It is the kind
of reason I keep citing that any useful political debate requires
proper moderation, so that we all respect the participants and the
content of the debate.) Anyway, ...

It is far from equivocating. It's far from remaining neutral "wrt
rival levels of value". It's taking a very clear and enlightened view,
and it's a view that requires considerable effort in the face of
denigration such as you offer in response. As you admit, it's you that
can't see the difference.

Interestingly Andy can. He says
"The MOQ seeks balance, (not between left and right but static and dynamic) ..."

Balance rather than simply choice.
Static and dynamic PoV's rather than left or right ideologies.

The MoQ tells us that Ideologies are not simply objects to be chosen.
It tells us to recognize them as multi-level PoV's with which we can
participate and which interact with each other; To understand and
influence how they work. Far from being "at odds with the text", not
surprisingly "the text" devotes considerable chapters to these
existing patterns and their history. Fortunately it gives us better
tools than a blunt choice between them; it gives us the social and
intellectual tools to seek and evolve better patterns from higher
quality patterns of individual behaviour within them.

Regards
Ian



On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ian said:
> We can debate and understand the distinctions in different ideologies, but as MoQists, there is no reason to choose an ideology. It's far from taking both sides, it's refusing to take sides,..
>
> dmb says:
> Well, I don't know what the difference is between taking both sides and refusing to take sides. Either way, you're equivocating, remaining neutral with respect to rival levels of value. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this neutrality. I think it's pretty clear that the MOQ gives us moral reasons to choose among ideologies. There are several chapters about these political conflicts wherein they are framed around an evolutionary moral battle. Refusing to take sides could very well be be construed as a kind of amoral position, a kind of nihilism. Plus, like I say, it's at odds with the text.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>