Re: MF Discussion Topic for May 2005 - individual worth

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 18:09:01 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MF Discussion Topic for May 2005 - individual worth"

    On 17 May 2005 at 12:33, Sam Norton wrote:

    Is DQ just on the top, ie you have to ascend up the levels to get to
    the DQ (and therefore, presumably, become like the LILA character
    Phaedrus)?

    Or is DQ the product of the interaction of the various levels (along
    the lines of Mark Maxwell's 'sweet spot' imagery) - and therefore the
    pursuit of DQ involves the enhancement of all the levels in different
    and mutually reinforcing ways? (and therefore we aren't obliged to
    become like the LILA character Phaedrus)

    To put that in graphical terms, is it option a:

           DQ
    L4 ^
    L3 ^
    L2 ^
    L1 ^

    Or option b:

    L4 ->
    L3 -> DQ
    L2 ->
    L1 ->

    msh suggests:
    It is neither. It's more like this:

    UNKNOWN NEXT LEVEL
      ^
    L4 -> DQ
      ^
    L3 -> DQ
      ^
    L2 -> DQ
      ^
    L1 -> DQ

    sam:
    MSH's point about Socrates.

    MSH asked for textual support for some allegations about Socrates,
    Sam provided them, then

    msh says:
    Here he is talking about what Socrates (Plato) thought, in the same
    way he talks about Descartes. He's not claiming that the Metaphysics
    of Quality re-enthrones Socrates, any more than it idolizes
    Descartes. The ideas of Socrates and Descartes characterize past
    philosophical upheavals, just as do the ideas of the MOQ.

    Sam now says:
    But I don't think it's tenable to say that the MoQ doesn't 'enthrone'
    Socrates as a martyr, and therefore hold him up as someone to be
    emulated, in contrast to the presentation of him in ZMM, where he
    was clearly NOT to be emulated.

    msh now says:
    Well, you've left out my explication of this seeming idolization,
    that is,

    "The battle for science (or Socratic philosophy) to free itself from
    the restrictions of social-dominated thought was a moral battle
    because social domination was threatening intellectual survival.
    What the MOQ says is , OK, the threat is past, so now let's catch
    our breath and apply unfettered intellect to the split between
    society and science. When we do, we see that not everything about
    social restrictions is negative, and the positive elements should be
    incorporated into our newly-freed intellectual understanding of the
    world."

    So intellectual value (truth) is recognized in some social level
    patterns. But if you're not convinced by this, here's something else
    to consider: Socrates (Plato) insists that truth stands alone, apart
    from social considerations; and yet, in LILA, Dusenberry's method of
    determining anthropological truth, by emersing himself in the culture
    he's studying rather than maintaining a SOM-Science objectivity, is
    found by Phaedrus to be highly valuable. So, Dusenberry's MOQ-
    Science method, which contradicts Socrates, is embraced by the
    Metaphysics of Quality! QEFnD.

    Best to all,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    -- 
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    "Very formidable. First you say things our way and then we'll listen 
    to you.  Phaedrus had heard it before.
    "What it always means is you have hit an invisible wall of 
    prejudice.  Nobody on the inside of that wall is ever going to listen 
    to you; not because what you say isn't true, but solely because you 
    have been identified as outside the wall."   The Cultural Immune 
    System: LILA-4
    MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
    MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 18:45:14 BST