That's certainly a better connotation of "solidarity" than I usually
to the word. However, I'm innately suspicious of all "Movements" except
those which champion individual liberty. Many Movements are
fundamentally totalitarian. That's my fear.
To which I reply that your suspicion and doubt are vital elements to any
attempt at building solidarity. I would submit that any Movement that
disregards the doubts and suspicions of those it would seek to include
is indeed a step towards totalitariansim and oppression. Perhaps
'coalition building' captures the flavor? The intersection of individual
To all intents and purposes, yes. Outside of a few viruses and man- made
freaks (like fruit-flies with 14 legs) there hasn't been any new life
forms since the cave man to my knowledge (Jonathan can correct me),
especially no new species (which evolution arguably still can't
remember reading somewhere that scientists generally agree that
humans have ceased evolving biologically. Moreover, in the MOQ what
has evolved are social and intellectual patterns. Biological patterns at
the biological level are pretty much stuck there. Finally, "flux" by
no sure indication of moral evolutionary change. Things can "flux" for
better or for worse.
As most evolutionary changes are glacial in pace, I would suggest that
it continues but perhaps beyond our perception. Certainly we see
adaptation. I think it would be short-sighted to infer that biological
patters "are pretty much stuck there". For the sake of discussion let's
table the matter for 1 million years and then re-address it:-) It's a
minor point, to be sure.
Since DQ temporarily suspends all static patterns, it can sometimes
give the appearance of destruction. But overall, DQ is the creative
A new definition of DQ? I'm not sure if I've encountered that exact idea
before. Is it a Pirsig idea? I'll confess I haven't read LILA or ZMM in
a while but I don't recall it ever being expressed quite like that. How
do we know the Good?
Now we have "flux" and DQ which are very different as you frame them.
I'm going to have to think about this a while. I'm not sure how the idea
My immidiate reaction is negative. Initially, this idea that "DQ is the
creative force for Good" suggests to my mind that what is Good is what
is *now* because it would be better than what came before it. If DQ
pushes for Good, then what is past must always be less Good since it did
not survive the evolution of morality that is central to MOQ. No?
This certainly will require some thought....Thank you for the food:-)
You suggest some scenarios that are hard for me to imagine. Are you
talking about an invasion from outer space? A worldwide atomic war
perhaps? If you could be more specific it would help.
I was specifically referring to your dire warnings about nanotechnology.
If man creates an organism that ultimately diplaces man as the dominant
speicies on Earth, how would the MOQ view this phenomenon?
You're not alone. This site is a wonderful place to air our conflicted
feelings for they are often in conflict with others, too. Sorting out
these conflicts for ourselves is what leads, as Matt and others have
suggested, to individual, personal excellence. At least, that's the
I certainly place high value on Rhetorical Dialectic in the Hegelian
sence. By constructing and deconstructing our various viewpoints we will
(hopefully and humbly) arrive at something Better. Cheers:-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:35 BST