Ham, I find myself in the unusual position of being in near total agreement with you on this one. As a theory of morality the MoQ offers precious little guidance in what is moral. As a theory rooted in evolution it has a peculiarly naive view of evolution. There are an awful lot of synonyms for Quality in there. Are the synonyms supposed to mean something or are they all undefined as well? And what is 'self' doing in there at all?
Krimel Krimel Krimel, If I may throw in my two cents worth, Looking at the levels in A purely objective fashion is the first fallacy I believe. the levels are not a representation of an objective reality, they are an intellectual understanding of experience. experience equates to (Quality/morality/reality ) pick your objective nomenclature. The Self is a clumsy word but consciousness comes closer to the term experience. So that The MoQ offers that MoQ Morality is experience. The highest form Being pre-intellectual. The most moral. Or the most empirical or most real. -Ron 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/
