KO and Ian,
My "Who decides? Who decides?" was sarcasm. or schizophrenia. It
looks like ones patterns, or variations of patterns, are ones
truths. There are many, many provisional truths. And while they are
active they are true. Nobody hold what they believe to be false.
A while back I came across a statement about truth that shocked me
with its wisdom. It was concerning the illusionary nature of
conventional truth, "If all perceptions are false, how can any
perception be true? They can be true if they are known to be false." Yup!
Marsha
At 07:01 AM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
Yes, Ian and Marsha, The Process! Thats dynamic quality. Who chooses - not
'I' - he is after the event, the choice.
This is most mysterious!
-KO
2009/1/8 Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>
> Hi Marsha,
>
> You make my point ... as did Lila ...
> The issue is inescapable and clearly it is wrong to treat it is as a
> question that "GOF-intellect" can answer directly.
> By asking it as a stark question I make that apparent.
>
> I see it more as a process for dealing with it ie the question and the
> answer are much more dynamic, living, circular ... strange-loopy.
>
> Thanks
> Ian
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:58 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Who decides? Who decides? Everybody thinks they are on the side of
> right.
> > It's the way Lila said it was... There's no way "he" can be wrong...
> It
> > just goes, on and on and on... Left? Right? Middle? It just circles
> back
> > onto itself one way or the other. There is no escaping it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 04:06 AM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Steve,
> >>
> >> I don't think we needed Ken Wilbur to point out that you need to break
> >> a few eggs to make an omlette.
> >> Achieving something better always involves damaging / disadvantaging /
> >> hurting / killing / destroying something else - Darwin formalized that
> >> process. The only thing inherent or essential about human nature is
> >> that it is evolved & evolving. When the power of better ideas fails to
> >> persuade (at the intellectual level), Pirsig (and Nietzsche and
> >> others) show us that physical force is morally empowered to overcome
> >> physical force (at the social and biological levels). There are
> >> morally just uses of lethal violence, from the individual, right up to
> >> the the scale of wars. I don't think any of us are "pacifists"
> >> pussyfooting around that.
> >>
> >> The question is begged of who decides when the "stronger violence is
> >> in saner hands" and whether the moral balance is net positive - when
> >> is it "sane" to hurt / kill / destroy for some "greater good" ? Basic
> >> ethics / moral philosophy.
> >>
> >> It is what I keep coming back to - "governance" in a general sense -
> >> who decides, and how ? We have a framework (the MoQ) for how these
> >> issues of value relate, but who decides ?
> >> That "sanity" is in the intellectual level of individuals. What should
> >> the relationship be between individual intellects and collective
> >> societies - where (if any) are the (enforcable) social limits to (act
> >> on) intellectual freedom ?
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Steven Peterson
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Hi Marsha, Arlo, Ron,
> >> >
> >> > I dabbled in pacificism for a while, but Pirsig among others convinced
> >> > me that humans are not intrinsically good. This is not to say that
> >> > they are intrinsically evil, either. Pragmatists have given up for
> >> > looking for essences which includes trying to talk about human nature
> >> > as good or evil because we don't want to talk about an essence of
> >> > humanity either.
> >> >
> >> > Can we achieve are goals without ever resorting to violence (including
> >> > participating in a governement that has a police force and a
> >> > military)? I doubt it. As Ken Wilbur pointed out, the only thing that
> >> > has ever controlled violence is stronger violence in saner hands.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Steve
> >> > 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/
> >> >
> >> 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/
> >
> > .
> > .
> > Albert Einstein: "Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my
> > consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive
> > for truth, beauty and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated."
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > 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/
> >
> 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/
>
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/
.
.
Albert Einstein: "Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my
consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who
strive for truth, beauty and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated."
.
.
.
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/
