"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality
it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality,
which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." (LILA, Chapter 12)
On Aug 1, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote:
> Hi Michael and others
>
> I don't think it is possible to solve this problem if it is all Obamas fault
> or someone else but I am really curious about what kind of contributions the
> MOQ can do to Obama and the democratic party.
>
> What if Obama followed MD or at least have read ZMM/LILA. Anybody know?
>
> It appears to me that the TEA-partys policy is much about just paying tax for
> military and justice, i e the kind of society in US just after the civil war.
> Since that century, there seem to be more technical institutions included to
> the defence against public enemies like aids, TV-commercials and other social
> means of destruction. Is it possible to define the limits clearer using the
> MOQ 4 level approach? Many cities are still built from a plan that it should
> be crowded of traffic by horses and carts. Peak oil pricing and speed limits
> may give us this kind of traffic back on Manhattan and other low standard
> areas but I think that the technologic evolution of the society since the
> wild west is hard to neglect.
>
> What if Obama should say that to defend human and individual freedom we have
> to be clear about freedom and constraint. Is distributing this insight a part
> of the intelligent defence of the 4 the level against collective madness? Is
> it clever pedagogy to threw bombs on all that have matured another opinion?
> We can for example listen to the stoic Epictetus who said that the only thing
> we own is our values, "our opinions, impulses, desires and aversions". All
> other which is at the social, biological or inorganic level is out of our
> personal control. You can tax my wage but don't try tax my mind and educated
> manners. I am not sure about that but I would like to discuss in under a
> political label to see if Obama is to blame.
>
> I know that I am free to choose my own opinion and change my mind about small
> and big matters and that this is nobody elses fking business. I want to be
> responsible and defend my right to make my own choices about my self but I
> automatically don't want to change my habits, my static pattern of
> personality, even if I know that I could possibly be better in some ways. I
> definitely don't want any social pressure about who or how I am or what I
> choose and think, MD included. But I couldn't choose when to be born or where
> to be rised and in what religous or social system. I couldn't choose to be
> born as a man or a woman, as a human or another living biological form. So
> what about this human constraint regarding liberal or republican politics? I
> cannot choose which inorganics are in my body more than to a limit. I can
> choose what to eat but can't see or detect the small molecules that follow
> from a polluted food production process. So who is responsible for defending
> my inorganic
c
> omposition against hostile material and preservations in my beer? Are we free
> to get old or catch diseases? I just can't see the germs so i dont think that
> I am philosophically free to avoid virus and bacterias. Accidents aren't my
> business either, still they happen because no one can have 100.00% control
> even at the 4th intellectual level. School shootings are again actualized by
> the massacre in Norway. In a free society with 98% sane people there will
> always be som real idiot with the opposite and dangerous opinion. The normal
> biologic instinct is to individually run away from the shooter but if all the
> pupils consciously were trained to act with strategies from the 4th level to
> run *against* the shooter instead he would be an easy object. Anyone who have
> got stuck in a crowd know how helpless you are against the mass. This
> behavioural pattern cannot be changed out from an individual basis, it must
> be commanded and paid by the public defence with a deep insight in 4th lev
e
> l warcraft.
>
> We are free to buy and sell and create business and enterprise. But we cannot
> choose currency or accountancy. We cannot have different legal systems in the
> same area. The fact that we have states and nations over the world with
> different politics (laws) are a sign of global freedom and local constraint.
> Who's going to defend the US dollar? We are free to choose what way to drive
> and walk but is it rational with competing traffic systems, railroads, water
> and sewage? If you can't choose traffic system and if to drive on the right
> or the left side on the road, then who should be responsible? How about
> education, language, to what extent are we free and to what are we not?
>
> If we can agree about to which extent we are free and to what extent we are
> more or less bound to static patterns of the social, biological and inorganic
> level, then it may be possible to apply the Dynamic/Static dichotomy upon
> what it is to live in a dynamic society with good political value and avoid
> wasting a lot of time and money on bullshit.
>
> We could be free from long sentences.
>
> Jan-Anders
___
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
