Hammy tips his hand, he's not here to discuss, he's here to convert. but that was rather evident to begin with. Follow Ham, he's got all the answers.
----- Original Message ---- From: Ham Priday <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 12:58:11 AM Subject: Re: [MD] The question WHY? Hey, Andre -- > It seems to me that we are attributing meaning to some concepts > which may not be very helpful. I think we need to get away from > the notion that the idea of 'preference' automatically implies (religious??) > notion of 'good' or 'goodness'. ... > > To turn to some of your examples Ham: floods (or earthquakes) > haven't you noticed the bonding and binding power of these events > on people? (after lots of static patterns have fallen away). Noticed the > scientific community ready with their accumulated data to improve > understanding in an effort at prediction/ prevention? The dealing with > the devastation and the dealing with the re-building? ... > > And let's not forget the dominant SOM thinking in this. The dualistic > us vs them, the assigning of blame/fault (usually to the victims), the > deserve not deserve attitude, the colour/ politics, enemy/ally > notions. These dualisms fall away when one is (in-) directly involved > in such calamities. The static patterns do not exist or are suspended. > Later it is 'business as usual...back to the static (trusted) > patterns. Oh yes, let's praise disaster and evil for their "bonding power" which brings us all together. How clever of Nature to provide these inconveniences to cleanse our souls and moralize our behavior! Seriously, do you really believe this is the physical universe "guiding us" to betterness? > The MoQ disintegrates these divisions into patterns of morality > according to evolutionary 'progress'. The secret lies in DQ/SQ. And > this is quite 'complete' (to use to positive of your expression > above). If the "patterns of morality" are programmed into evolution, where is individual freedom in your paradigm? You say "the secret lies in DQ/SQ." (It's certainly a secret to me.) There's nothing "static" about existence, and there's no reason to assume that Quality (Value) is "dynamic" In fact, there's no logic I'm aware of that supports Quality independently of man's realization or judgment. > And I would suggest Ham that the MoQ is a hell of a good thought > and some on this discuss have found it. I'm happy for you that you've discovered Pirig's thesis to be the source of such profound thought. As for myself, I shall continue to enjoy the Freedom of individual subjectivity which the MoQ does not support but which existence does. Best wishes, Ham 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/
