Mary, Diana, Rob and all MOQites.
This is my last entry on the righteous issue and I will not raise
any new questions or go into particular points, but merely say this:
MARY closed this month's topic elegantly by pointing to the righteous
term being SOM to the core. Again it is revealed that the Q
world-view requires a complete turn about. Very little can be carried
over from one to the other. Whether this is promising or the ultimate
frustration is the topic suggestion I struggled to formulate, but
couldn't recall.
DIANA solved the paradox that sounded so ominous at first
To be moral you rationalize your actions based on the four
levels. To be moral you should not rationalize at all.
The Picasso example is splendid and can be compared to Pirsig's in
the RTA trail (ch.30) of how the freedom-ritual conflict has been
worked out within Hindi tradition .
ROBERT still has a few dilemmas to solve. I will only comment
this paragraph:
> Suppose I feel jealous of some Mr.-I-am-Perfect. I may be sick of people
> praising him and being insensitive to my needs to be recognized. What
> do I do? What does the MOQ say? ANY choice I make involves my
> reasoning of this social situation. There is no purely "social" or
> "intellectual" solution. (I saw Star Trek and it is similarly wrong -- with
> McCoy/Spock mis-representing emotion/logic.)
If (your) reasoning means justifying yes, thinking or mental activity
is part of all human situations. Illnesses employ a whole industry
labouring on finding reasons and names for the ailments, but that
does not mean that there is no pure biological level. REASON (as
MOQ's Intellect) is a moral that tries to free itself from social
values. That's why I have tested the idea that Q-Intellect is
Subject-Objetivization itself: the ability to raise oneself out of
emotions. Finally to your challenge:
I never consult the MOQ for what to do in a particular
situation, and yet the overall Q-idea colours my existence. It's the
good feeling of having found an philosophical system that
satisfies me. If this sounds contradictory it is another paradox
solved by Diana's example.
Bo
"Quality isn't IN the eye of the beholder.
Quality IS the eye of the beholder".
(Platt Holden)
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:45 GMT