Andre to John
Hi John. Well...in view of what you are saying further in your post I don't > want to press the point too hard but the fish (or whatever it was) is in > competition with all the 'above water elements' resulting in the change of > gills to lungs and whatever (I am not a biologist by any means) requiring a > profound redevelopment and adaptation of its organic patterns and the > invention of new ones to assist in the process of survival. The struggle > you seem to be referring to above seems like one that takes physical effort > which can be exhausting and that will certainly be part of the adaptive > process of working out what's best i.e. which will ensure the survival of > the species. But struggle or as I maintain, competition (both apply) isn't > confined to (in)organic patterns of value. > > John: what I mean by struggle is the effort to reach the highest value. If you're focusing on social level values, it's the struggle to be famous and if you're just content with biology, its to stay alive and procreate. Intellectual ideas struggle to gain social success but intellectual values do not compete with social values. That is, it shouldn't. Intellect should be concerned with truth, not celebrity. Competition is a kind of slavery to the game. > John: > > But competition has a different connotation - of an equal opponent. > > Andre: > I'm not sure what you are getting at here John. An 'equal opponent'? > Remember we are talking about patterns of value here. It has little to do > with size or numbers or weight i.e.(in)organic patterns. > > John: I mean "of the same kind". When a cheetah races a slug, the very inquality of the contest is labeled "no competition". I believe the levels are like this - that it's "no competition" for a society to beat up a single biological individual. And certainly there is no competition between the organic and the inorganic levels! But there is a struggle to stay alive. But this struggle is competitive, only with other biological beings. > John: > > An idea may struggle for popular acceptance but it does not compete with > society or social patterns. > > Andre: > Here we go again. Popular acceptance as distinct from social patterns? > John: I made the distinction for rhetorical, not logical reasons. You could certainly say it, "An idea may struggle for popular acceptance but it does not compete with popular acceptance." I mean how can you compete with what you strive for? That would be absurd. Andre: > Take the idea of human rights (as an example)...does that not compete? > This universal idea does not compete with parochial/national social > interests?? Come on John. The news/media is full of it. Remember, as an > example, that the Children's Bill of Rights has not been signed by the US > of A, for 'economic' reasons. > Remember Martin Luther King (civil rights for > blacks/minorities...everyone)? Remember Lincoln (Abolition of Slavery)? > There was no struggle? No competition? > > John: I'm trying to make the case that when ideas compete, they compete FOR celebrity but they do not compete WITH celebrity. And the reason I insist upon this point so repeatedly is that I see there is a problem with the MoQ and it's social acceptance. I think the MD community has had some warped idea of antagonism toward society, AS society. Just because level 4 is higher than level 3 does not mean it should be hostile or antagonistic to level 3. A parent may struggle with his child but a parent that competes with his child has got problems. Andre: > The beauty of high quality intellectual patterns of value is that they are > universally applicable. That makes them high quality patterns...applicable > everywhere and for everyone at any time. And what makes them universally > applicable? Because they are the highest intellectual quality > representation/ manifestation of what is Good. > John: Truth that is undeniable, no matter if unpopular, yes. There is a beauty there, I agree. Andre: > However, this creates a problem for societies (and social patterns) that > are (typically) dominated by national/parochial social patterns. And which > society isn't? John: Amen! My point exactly. A society-less intellectual pattern is as impossible as life with no inorganic patterns like air and sunlight. Andre: Each society has it's defining features...its defining values which it > feels it needs to protect. Otherwise it wouldn't exist or deserve the > status of separate 'country'. There must be a boundary (SOM all the way). > And when something (intellectually) universally applicable comes along > there is going to be competition with those social values because it is > seen as a threat. A threat to one's identity, sovereignty, character... you > name it...all the social and psychological values you can think of. > > John: Right now the MoQ is in a postion of opposition to SOM and SOM as a metaphysics has a certain kind of society associated with it. Our struggle isn't with social patterns per se, but bad social patterns that flow from a bad metaphysics. We can't overcome existing social patterns by mere intellectualizing. Sometimes I think our vision would be more attractive if we envisioned an MoQ society. We criticize often but have little imagination in describing a Quality-orient world rather than a S/O - oriented one. > John: > > Perhaps that's a bit semantically esoteric, but it seems important to me. > > Andre: > I appreciate that John and I think I have addressed that. Please remember > we are talking about values. > > > I think it's more fruitful to apply Value to our objects of discussion, than making Value the object of discussion. And if you tell me I don't understand the MoQ after *that* statement, I'll scream. :) John 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
