Hi Gav, as a phrase "limited freedom" is certainly oxymoronic, one end of a spectrum imposed on the other, but as you would say it's "descriptive not prescriptive" ... a description of (most of) reality ... dynamic forces in some semblance of balance, where the apparently static patterns are merely the "current" state of that dynamic balance.
I'm tempted to jump to your conclusion > > the free individual has no need of any explicit > morals; he neither recognises nor offers any. his life > is one with nature, one with all, and in unity there > logically can be no conflict. conflict is the reason > for morals. > We keep arriving at this crux .... clearly IF there were no "conflict", there would be no need of judgement or values or morals to decide actions .... but surely as a description of the way the world is, the MoQ recognises many conflicting drives within and across the levels, and the process by which evolution can nevertheless occur ... there the MoQ is only prescriptive in so far as the levels themselves are recognised, and the processes by which change happens ... it cannot prescribe what the actual patterns or changes are or should be within the levels ... its prescriptive at the meta-level only, I would say. As Peter suggests even with absolutely no social constraints on freedom, we as humans would find it hard to fly, for purely physical reasons. Ian 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
