Joe to Andre: The politics in an anthill does not equate to voting for a leader, nor does selecting a leader by genetics violate voting for a leader.
Andre: Politics going on in an anthill? This reminds me of some National Geographic program where the lion cub is given a name, together with mum and dad and the voice over weaves a wonderful tale of playfulness, boredom and lazing around on behalf of the cub and then mum getting ready to go to do some 'work'(hunt for food)while dad, the lion king, keeps his eye on the cub and the rest of proceedings. In this way assigning roles, responsibilities and meaning to behaviours that supposedly reflect and justify social level practices and values. This extension of Darwin's (biological) theory to the social i.e. Social Darwinism I find very dangerous. As Pirsig argues, when you mix social level values with organic level values you 'destroy the system of classification set up by the MOQ'.(LC, Annotn. 4,5 and 15) The anthill is [an expression of] organic patterns of value. Politics is [an expression of] social patterns of value. As Sir Billy McMahon, former prime minister of Australia, once said: Politics is about power. When you are in opposition all you try and do is get into power. When you are in power all you try and do is stay there. Is this the sort of stuff going on in an anthill? Joe: When I ponder emotions I cannot define a feeling of Joy. Andre: You've just 'defined' it Joe. You've just named it...2x. Joe: I equate emotions with DQ in that they are indefinable and prior to SQ intellect. Andre: See above. You just said they are a feeling and you named that feeling 'joy'. This gets me back to Pirsig arguing that emotions belong at the organic/biological level. They are a biological response to quality and not quality itself. Joe: In a DQ/SQ metaphysics How can DQ be described? Andre: Some posters here have addressed this many, many times of late. Why this obsession with wanting to describe DQ? Even the term 'Dynamic' is a violation. Even the term 'Quality' is a violation. It is the 'ineffable', the 'mystical', the ground-stuff of many philosophies also known as the Perennial Philosophy. Attempts at description invariably fail in adequacy. As soon as you do, you have a static description which may or may not be useful. The closest I know of is that it is described as 'unitive knowledge'. But the actual 'content' of this is never mentioned. The enlightened ones, the saints, the holy men only use 'fingers to point' towards it. Unity of small self/Big Self? What does that mean? The Buddha would say: 'Find out for yourself'. Okay, like the bar,the fridge and the ladies...here's mine: DQ/sq is provisional. DQ is. Joe: I equate emotions with DQ in that they are indefinable and prior to SQ intellect. The necessity for an awareness in DQ is the perception of reality and evolution. There has to be sentient understanding, emotion, before political speaking, intellect. This applies to science as well. Science is immoral without it, the holocaust. Andre: Well, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here Joe. I guess (and it's only a guess) that you are pointing to a much needed expansion of conventional, SOM rationality. I would have thought that this is what ZMM and LILA is about.
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
