From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 15:13:14 GMT
Dear Wim,
You responded on 20 Jan 03 to my 21 Dec 02 post.
i wrote:
> Dear Mari,
> 'As agreement becomes wider spread the "social pattern of value" becomes
> defined by agreement and hence the social level virtually comes into it's
> own. How does this square with your take ... on "social level"?'
You wrote back:
> It squares fairly well [* agreement*] with what I wrote 9 Feb 2002
19:56:28 +0100: [*explaination*]
> 'Without competing social patterns of values, the intellectual
> level is hardly distinguishable from the social level. [*agreement* i like
the idea that the social level and intellectual level are hardly
distinguishable. i read into this that it is *not bad* or perhaps even
*good*; this is my interpretation of your remarks so far. Your
commenting/communication is explaining furthermore what you think,
presenting your view, expanding perhaps on my view.
You continue:
> A social pattern of values is reproduced by people copying
> behavior of other people over generations; [*agreement*]
>its static latch is reproduced behavior or "culture", "accumulated
> ways to do things".
[ interesting way of seeing this and now that you present the idea in
particular words assembled in such a way that is making sense, i'm finding
myself in *agreement* a little dynamic shift took place with-in the
interpretation that is looked at by me as *change* it helped me see this
thing in a "better light"
Things sorta take a turn at this point and fall apart.
Wim continues:
Without win/lose interactions with external
> entities (even if only with the predators an isolated
> hunter/gatherer society meets in its natural environment) there
> is no need for internal win/win interactions, no drive to
> meticulously copy "ways of doing things" that have proven
> conducive to survival.
> An intellectual pattern of values is reproduced by people copying
> motives from other people (their reasoning that is supposedly
> "behind" consciously motivated actions); its static latch is
> reproduced motives or "ideology" (in a non-derogatory sense),
> "accumulated ways to justify actions". In a stable social pattern
> of values without serious competitors nearly all behavior is
> "normal" and needs no conscious justification. Motivation and
> copying motives from others is unnecessary.'
Mari says:
somewhere in here it appears to me that what you are saying drifts away from
the point i was attempting to make when i said: "As agreement becomes wider
spread the 'social pattern of value' becomes
> defined by agreement and hence the social level virtually comes into it's
> own.
Mari says: In my way of "seeing" how things are, change occurs in degrees
more often than not and at some point they have changed so much that they
become something else, they "evolve" if you will....that's when things "come
into their own" in my metaphorical way of seeing it, it's like a quantum
leap. ( even QL's come in sizes )
The rest of what i wrote further illustrates my belief while you and a few
other seem to think differently. i wouldn't go so far as to say that one of
us is right and the other is wrong but i would say that agreement with the
* keep it individual and private side* presents a different set of
consequences for those who choose that method. And like wise choosing the
other side has it's own set of consequences. Being faced with this situation
has presented me with some unexpected challenges...... i'm moving either
into or out of the fog which lifts from time to time giving me a glimps of
yet another reality.
>
> i also wrote:
> 'I agree that MoQ "... should stay flexible, versatile and debatable to
stay
> alive." That said, doesn't there need to be agreement at times to elevate
DQ
> into practical action? Otherwise what good is it if all we do is present
> good arguements and new definitions? The eloquence of the MoQdg is
> captivating indeed but tell me Wim where does it all lead?'
Wim responds back, Mari answers the questions along the way:
>
> Why should we agree to 'elevate DQ into practical action'?
Mari: There are several reasons why i see agreement and 'practical action'
as a better choice in assisting "group/society" not to the exclusion of
individual evolution i might add. ( obviously the individual can practice
"pratical action" which may or may not trickle out into the main-stream.
Definetly serving the "I" and perhaps serving "other" )Also because i
believe that the accumulated energy of a MoQ directive established to serve
the whole as well as the individual is a higher choice than choosing to
serve the individual without considering others. When choosing "I" AND
"other" the individual is by nature and action a part of the whole. Where-as
chosing the other way the individual is apart from the whole; an island.
Wim went on:
Not knowing
> physical addresses of almost all MD-contributors (and those I know don't
> live nearby), practical action will have to be individual.
Mari asks: What does physical address have to do with spreading the news,
making a plan, and carrying it out? In fact the nature of such the extreme
distances could actually be a great asset if you choose to look at it that
way.
Wim goes on:
Why should our
> interpretations of the MoQ be less individual?
Mari: don't know what you mean by that so i won't even attempt an answer.
Wim asks:
> How does the MoQ help you in your life? [presents perspectives that
challenge me to be aware, to use everything to the best of my ability and my
ability to use what is presented for consideration.]
Where does it lead you? [ lead me here]
We could
> exchange ways of applying our MoQ, but we don't need to agree on them to
> apply it.
[ "to apply" "it" is what i want to do. i am asking for volunteers
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
Thanks Wim for your interest!
Mari
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 15:18:41 GMT