Friends and Neighbours: Here are some values concerning static and dynamic morality. Specifically, about the way we conduct our social/intellectual selves through this mailing list. To begin with the better side, I think we can all agree that a positive aspect of our discussions is that: I don't know the biological you. (inorganic - where in the world, we usually do know. Thank Quality that there is little, if any, geographic bias on this mailing list - i.e. all 'lower svbodians' suck, all Canadians are undoubtedly way better than Americans...heheh... we can also thank Quality that we all have a sense of humo(u)r, 'eh neighbo(u)rs?... and tolerate silly, distracting regressions...) I can't hate you 'cuz your black, white or green. I can't immediately statically presume your opinion is invalid because you're fat or skinny, or have a big zit on your nose. So all that is good, for now. (Pray that webcams will remain forever optional... we need not regress to 1984) To get at the negative aspect of these discussions: --- WAIT!!!!! short sidetrack: See what I just did? I said "THE neg...", rather than what is MORE (not abolutely) correct - "A neg...(according to Rich's values...) (see below) --- What seems to really hinder progress is just exactly what Rog and David B. have just pointed out. There is not any 'absolute' truth, in the sense of all things being only either 'right' or 'wrong', or 'good' or 'bad'. As far as I value, in the MOQ all absolutist dual-som thinking is seen not as 'absolutely bad' (for that would be contradicktory), but as BETTER replaced by recognizing THE FUZZ. I mean that a decent way of looking at the world is that there are shades, or degrees of evolving goodness, not an eternal headbashing of opposites. When we understand truth and goodness in this way, we can no longer terrorize our young into believing that there are two and only two ways of behaving, and two and only two consequences: classic/romantic, sin/virtue and heaven/hell, quality/noquality I say that with not NO, but with LITTLE respect for the old static Christian (Western: Greek-Judean Euro-American) way of thinking in 2's. For example, read about the beginnings and the early history of Islam - Mohammed most definitely brought a better way of thinking to Mecca and area - the religion grew very large, very quickly, dynamically improving on the existing nasty state of biological and social affairs in the mid-east at that time. This only happened because the Koran truly is a beautiful statement of values (mostly - shades and degrees, right?), and surely Mohammed was a very high-Quality, dynamic individual. Hmmm... I think it would also be really beneficial for us to keep in mind that this de-, or re- valuation of dualistic thinking must also apply to the East - yin/yang, samsara/nirvana, satori/avidya... I know (intellectually value) that Shankaracharya and Nagarjuna would agree. Both Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika Mahayana Buddhism (Great Vehicle of the Middle Way) are, I believe, crucial patterns of value in both the conception (Phaedrus in India) and the development (Us Here and Now) of the MOQ. So the whole point I was trying to make before eight billion intellectual patterns of alleyway value interrupted, like they're doing now... REPEAT AFTER ME: When I dis-agree with you, I will not presume to be 'right' and you 'wrong', thereby heading out with my dog-ma on an inquisitive crusade to 'fix you up right, boy!' Rather, I will keep in mind that if I believe to see the best answer at the present spacetime, then other answers are not incorrect, but less valuable, and should be treated with 'care' - coming from as dhyan-ic as possible a state of gumptious being. So, when discussing anything related to the MOQ, I will keep in mind that I should never, ever (here's an absolute two, too - toodely bop a dee doo! - tell me you haven't now forgotten how this run-on sentence began...!) apply criticism to another view without first breathing deeply, grooving on the present dynamic quality, and then calmly and rationally trying to find what is BEST on each side of a debate, and THEN critically CONSTRUCT what presents itself as a better answer... not what 'I' 'KNOW' to be a better answer... 'cuz really there is no 'I' which knows... there is only knowing - in better or worse, more or less good ways. Well, before I need change my name to 'sidetrack', I should go. and remember: See Dick Dogmatize, See Dick Argue --- See Dick Drive us Nuts I'll Ca-shew later! (oh... that was a very, very, bad pun - I'm sorry) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
