Hi Bo:

You wrote:

> Hello Stephen, pleased to meet you if we haven't spoken earlier.
> 
> I'm from the original Lila Squad times and am reeling from more 
> than ten years of fighting for the MOQ, yet seeing it deteriorating 
> every day and is why I just had a fleeting glance ate the Catholic 
> page you referred to on 27 July: it's about as far from the MOQ's 
> social LEVEL as possible.

Yes, indeed. 

> > I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how one group of
> > people (Catholics) look at social level values.  Is there any parallel
> > to social values we usually discuss?  What are the overarching
> > intellectual values/ideals driving these social teachings?
> 
> The real Q-social level's purpose was (still is) a dynamic revolt 
> against biological value of merely eating and proliferating, thus 
> social value was/is about checking this "jungle" existence and what 
> fulfills this purpose is a greater reality that transcends biological 
> life. Thus the proclaimed catholic human rights is about the least 
> Q-social value there is, they are all about the individual's 
> submission to the greater reality (religion most often, but can be 
> called "the common cause"). 

Also called "the public good," or "the public interest," described in the 
MOQ as submission to the Giant.

> However, because intellectual value is the same revolt regarding 
> social value one of its its value aspects turns round human worth 
> and rights ... and THIS is what has reformed the original "raw" 
> social patterns to the present mellow "teachings" . The catholics 
> may believe that the individual's preservation is their agenda, but 
> the Semitic type religion are Q-social patterns and everything turns 
> round existence beyond, their least concern is Q-intellectual 
> welfare. 

Right.

> I won't pull the whole cultural history, but Christendom is 
> ambiguous with one leg in the Semitic, Q-social tradition the other 
> in the modern, intellectual one, Catholicism representing the 
> former, while Lutheranism represents the latter. Excuse my 
> grumpy style, but I'm aghast of how this discussion has mangled 
> the MOQ.

"Mangled" is putting it mildly. 

Best,
Platt

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/

Reply via email to