Hi Everyone This months elected topic is from Marco: "Is democracy the best (most moral) option for the q-social level?" Of course I'm not longing for totalitarianism, but I think our modern democracies are far from being perfect. Is the will of the majority enough to declare what's right and what's wrong? For example, has the majority of a democratic nation like the USA the right to require the capital punishment? And is it moral that the main gauge for a statesman to take a decision is the voice of the majority? I'm your discussion facilitator for October so the normal rules apply. Please try to keep on topic and relevant to the MOQ. The voting results are shown below Thanks Horse ###################################################### 1. Mark (3 votes) Mark, Andreas, Magnus "My interpretation that S/O is Q-Intellect puts the QUALITY idea in a position as some groping 5th level. From there abstract/concrete has no jurisdiction outside intellect's own circle. Intellect has been out to de-throne social value and promote its own universality. The MOQ as a fifth level will do exactly the same: Its purpose is to check Intellect and elevate itself to universality. It says: The static sequence is neither abstract nor concrete, that is intellect's game, my game is DQ/SQ!" (Bodvar to MF, Sept. 2000) Should we equate subject/object thinking with the MOQ's 4th level? 2. Dan (0 votes) "I tend to see the development of language as evolutionary valuing of preconditioned subject/object awareness. For example, Bo once mentioned Helen Keller and her struggle to gain knowledge to communicate with others. Metaphorically seen in her light, certainly we humans possessed language skills before civilization, but without a preconditional way (language in humans) in which to communicate, social structures would have no value latching opportunities. Before civilization as historically recorded, humans lived and thrived and died for tens and hundreds of thousands of years quite possibly in tribal\family units, which again value preconditioned communication. I seriously doubt there could be language as we know it without preconditioned subject/object awareness." (...sounds like a wonderful topic suggestion for October.) This "preconditioned way" reminds me of Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar- that we have innate language properties metaphorically embodied in a 'little black box' or Language Acquisition Device (LAD). This might explain our radical acquisition of language (3-4 years!) in spite of its complex system of rules. So then would there have been something about the early grammar of the pre-Subject-Object language that rendered it unprepared for self-conscious awareness? and what might this something have been? 3. Marco (4 votes) Richard, Todd, Marco, Horse "I would like to discuss democracy. Is democracy the best (most moral) option for the q-social level?" Of course I'm not longing for totalitarianism, but I think our modern democracies are far from being perfect. Is the will of the majority enough to declare what's right and what's wrong? For example, has the majority of a democratic nation like the USA the right to require the capital punishment? And is it moral that the main gauge for a statesman to take a decision is the voice of the majority? ------- End of forwarded message ------- MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
