Hi Ant,
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Ant, > > No John, I think it's you who misunderstand as regards the issue of > competition between the four different static levels (of the MOQ). > > For instance, you posted SEVEN posts on MD today which breaks the social > conventions of this discussion group (the MD rules clearly state ONLY FOUR > POSTS A DAY PER MEMBER!!!) didn't know that, Ant. But to tell the truth, I have a different perspective on what a social pattern is. you look at the rules but I pay attention to the rule-maker. If horse wants to cut me some slack because I've got a bit of catching up to do, AND, he likes my jive, then he's gonna break the rules for me. The purpose of discussion is quality discussion. If that goes a little beyond the limit... well, the good teacher will allow that, when he can. The great advantage of a jr. college education, like I got, is that when I was going to philosophy class, and we got so engrossed in ideas that we didn't want the academic limitations to stop us, we didn't. Not that much on the line, I guess. Nobody was going anywhere else, anyway. We skipped class, in order to stay together and stay on task. That's one gripe I got against the normal system, always pulling the student's attention to the next class and the next assignment. I may be a ne'er do well and free spirit but I do believe that discussion of Quality is important. Maybe too important to merely follow rules meant for fools. Ant: but your need to express yourself intellectually (if I am being generous to > the content of your posts!) indicates that there must have been some sort > of competition going between the morally superior need to intellectually > express yourself and pissing off Horse! > > > J: To be clear, Ant, I withdrew for some time, due to an adamant position of Andre and dmb over the nature of "absolute" as a good definition for Quality. The conflict seemed so intractable that it would cause nothing but problems and dissent, so I resigned. Horse didn't kick me out and has never threatened to do so. He's reined me in, a time or two, but I can take that from him, he's a horse. But you nailed it on the head with my "need to express myself intellectually". It's a flaw. I can only ask your forbearance. It's sick and twisted, this whole metaphysics lark, but so, so irresistible. Rorty said we got nothing but good conversation, but the MoQ puts some teeth in that "good". > POST CONINUED BELOW... > > I can hardly wait. > > > Ant McWatt added to Dave Buchanan's comments, March 1st 2014: > > > > John, > > > > Just to be clear here, an individual in the MOQ is defined as being > > composed of the four static levels, inorganic, biological, social and > > intellectual. > > > > If you equate the individual with just the intellectual level (of the > > MOQ) then that puts you outside the MOQ straight away and that's the > end > of the conversation philosophically - at least as far as this > > discussion group is concerned. > > > John Carl responded March 3rd 2014: > > No, you misunderstand. I agree that the individual is all four levels. > Which is why it doesn't make sense to me to construe them as competitive > with each other. Am I in competition with my spleen? No, all competition > is inherently social... > > -----CUT----- > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Firstly, John, it sounds to me you're back tracking here. J: I am. And if no backtracking is allowed, then your system is dead. Betterness and openess to change for the better are fundamental to the MoQ and what it's about. It's a confusing subject, the self and intellect and that's why I'm talking about it. But through this talks I've developed an interpretative vocabulary that may or may not be useful for you, but it sure works for me. An individual is a being in 4 levels. A self is a social creation. It's a fine distinction but when you think about it, very helpful but if you don't wanna adopt it, I understand. I apologize for the confusion and in future will keep that distinction in play. Ant: > Moreover, for instance, if I'm in an exam to enter the UK civil service, I > am in an intellectual competition with the other candidates. I wouldn't > get in the UK civil service by being nice to the examiners on the day. > > Well, I'm in the US. Here if you're a hottie and willing to show it off, you'll go far. And attain more social respectablity than any mere stodgy old academician. Which is really, really sad, I know. But to take your example, it still relies upon a certain social structure for its instantiation = a board of some kind, no doubt, at the top. And handing down rules and regulations throughout so that the tests given have some real meaning - and that meaning is a social pattern in this case. So intellect doesn't directly interact with society, it acts through mediaries - individuals who chose a better way of thinking. But - and this is my whole point really, social patterning is not the enemy of intellect. If intellectual ideas will live, they must live socially. So to hate social patterns and call them "lower" in a derogatory way all the time, does not serve the MoQ community well, imho. John > Best wishes, > > Ant > > > P.S. I have had enough of bloody Platt and right-wing apologists for one > lifetime btw. They have gone a large way to fucking up this planet and > need to start taking a more responsible, less selfish "way of life". A > close scrutiny of the lives of the Buddha and Jesus Christ respectively > might be a good start pointing for such "lost" right wingers towards the > "right" way. In my very honest opinion!!! > > > "I don't know why nobody told you > > How to unfold your love > > I don't know how someone controlled you > > They bought and sold YOU! > I look at the world and I notice it's turning > > While my guitar gently weeps > > Every mistake, we must surely be learning > > Still my guitar gently weeps > I don't know how you were diverted > > You were perverted too > > I don't know how you were inverted > > No one alerted you > I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping > > While my guitar gently weeps > > I look at you all > > And still my guitar gently weeps" > (George Harriosn, 1968) > > . > 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 > 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
