John to Andre:
According to the MoQ, intellect should rrule society - but this is
plainly impossible. The only way intellect can rule over social patterns
is within the mind of an individual...
Andre:
I fail to understand what you are trying to say here John. The attempt
at intellectual supremacy over social patterns is the story of the 20th
Century and it is continuing to this day. To say that the intellectual
supremacy over social patterns is 'plainly impossible' is an indication
of this battle. It suggests that the social driving forces of
fame,fortune and glory (celebrity and 'greed is good')still appear to be
dominating. And you suggest that it should be so.
But there are compelling forces, from the (in)organic and the
intellectual showing that the current dominant social values adhered to
will inevitably lead to a destabilization of (in)organic values that
will destabilize social forces to such an extent that its own base will
be severely weakened. An Moq perspective will show that this is due to
the notion that the intellectual pattern appointed to take over society
i.e. science, has a defect in it. This is so because it has no provision
for morals. (You know the story).
It seems to me that the MoQ perspective i.e. its expanded intellectual
value system shows that we do not need to go down the cataclysmic path
the Victorian social system went to i.e the First World War with its
half million rotting corpses in one battle alone!
Intellect shows that our current progress i.e. (as an example): economic
growth at all cost, will inevitably lead to its own downfall. The battle
is of course that the environmentalists are ridiculed, the notion of the
warming of the earth is ridiculed, the silencing of the economists,
university professors, researchers and the like who DO carry a moral
agenda as well... are placed in the box of 'alternatives' because they
are placed outside of the mainstream of this debate. But they are very
much part of this battle of supremacy.
And this is NOT only possible 'within the mind of an individual'. You
are personalizing all the patterns the MoQ talks about. Forget Lila (as
a person), forget Rigel (as a person), forget Phaedrus (as a person).
They all represent values of the differing levels...the differing
perspectives...the highest being inclusive of all the others.
John:
who is trying to be objective.
Andre:
There is no such thing as 'objective' when talking about the social or
intellectual levels.
John:
The minute that individual tries to rule over any other person or
society we are at the level of social conflict again.
Andre:
See my earlier comment about 'personalizing' values.
John:
more questions, that's what. The more hypothesis you have, the more you
generate.
Andre:
From a SOM perspective...yes...there will be no end to it.
John:
And if you ask me what reality is, well it's a value! So sure, the
argument goes in a bit of a circle but then everything does.
Andre:
Here we differ John.'Reality' is not a value. It's the ground from which
values are abstracted.This 'ground' is ineffable. It is the
'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum', the void, emptiness, Quality.
The end and the beginning of a circle and not an end nor
beginning...throw the whole tetralemma on it.
It just is.
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
