>From owner-moq_discuss@mill.venus.co.uk Mon Dec 14 05:09:46 1998
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id NAA12053
> for moq_discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:07:08 GMT
>Received: from netwall.bull.se ([193.44.17.2] (may be forged))
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA12048
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:07:00 GMT
>Received: from bull.se (eq08.bull.se [129.181.241.25] (may be forged))
by netwall.bull.se (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29650 for
<moq_discuss@moq.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:06:20 +0100
>Received: from bill.link.bull.se (bill.link.bull.se [129.181.242.7]) by
bull.se (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA54496 for <moq_discuss@moq.org>;
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:07:01 +0100
>Received: from pc_qmgb.link.bull.se by bill.link.bull.se (AIX 3.2/UCB
5.64/4.03)
> id AA35119; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:06:14 +0100
>Message-Id: <36750CC9.999AEDA2@bull.se>
>Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:04:09 +0100
>From: Magnus Berg <qmgb@bull.se>
>Organization: DataVis
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
>X-Accept-Language: sv
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Social values
>References: <015d01be269f$164615e0$100e8b80@marder.agri.huji.ac.il>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>
>Hi Jonathan and Squad
Hi Magnus!,
>
>You wrote:
>> Why do I feel that Horse "prejudges" my post of 7th Dec where I first
>> suggested that Intellect didn't really fit AS A LEVEL.
>> In that post, I claimed that what we and Pirsig have been calling
>> Intellectual Values might more conveniently be called Social
>> Values e.g.
>> MAGNUS says
>> >Intellectual Quality Events of a country on the other hand
>> >are usually called elections...
>> I think that we can equally well call elections a "social event".
>
>Yes. But we can also call it biological because our society uses
>its senses, voting booths, to make the decision. And we can also
>call it inorganic because our votes are written on papers in
>envelopes. Dependency, dependency, dependency...
>
>I don't know if you just think I'm kidding or pulling your leg
>with these examples. You don't seem to take them seriously anyway.
>I'm not kidding! I'm dead serious.
>
>> HORSE:-
>> >As far as I'm aware the MoQ is based upon 4 levels of value.
>> Pirsig DOES say this, but he also confuses it by talking about 5
types
>> of morality.
>> Magnus and Bo lose the concept of levels altogether by going off into
>> new dimensions.
>
>Lose, clarify, whatever. The dimension approach is the only way I see
>that makes sense out of the reality I perceive. And there's nothing in
>Lila that contradicts it.
>
>
>> I call it for what it is. Unfortunately, it is not up to me
personally
>> to determine society's values.
>> But I know what *I* consider right and good. One thing I
>> *know* is that
>> movements which have *claimed* to place intellect and logic first
have
>> been responsible for some of the most immoral behaviour known to man.
>
>
>Jonathan, I know that you have serious doubts about intellect being
>more moral than society. I believe your reasons are that the model
>you have of intellect and the rest of the levels are simply not
>compatible with your moral codes. So, you let go of the equation
>reality=morality and puts human morality first.
>
>I think this is what Pirsig means with "Rigel-morality". Rigel-
>moralists can preach about what is moral without facing the
>consequences in reality. They can say things like "Humans are
>the most valuable creature", without thinking about how we got
>to be most valuable. For example, what do you think happened to
>our nearest predecessors? Do you think they just died silently?
>I think not, I think they got butchered without mercy because
>they occupied the same place in the food chain. Homo sapiens
>killed the other race because they could, and it was moral.
>It was moral because they could, and they could because it was
>moral. Morality = Reality. I doubt the same Rigel-moralist
>would claim this event to be moral.
>
>But it goes deeper than that, it also means that every event
>in every level happens because it is moral. If I drop my coffee
>cup, it will fall to the floor. It falls because a world in which
>it falls is more moral than a world in which it doesn't, or a world
>in which it sometimes falls and sometimes not. I'm not kidding now
>either when I say that every such event in every level affects
>what most people call morality.
>
>What I'm trying to say is that we *do* have quite legitimate reasons
>for questioning certain moral issues. We're trying to keep our view
>of reality consistent, because reality *is* consistent, otherwise it
>would sometimes dead lock and freeze like a Microcrap program. I wish
>you'd think about that the next time you scorn me, Bo or anyone else
>for having another opinion about something.
If you respect us putting
>the morality=reality equation before anything else, I promise to
>respect you putting humanity on the front row.
The above is the key. When social morality does not match
Reality=Morality; that is what, Values, create problems.
Best regards,
Paul.
>
> Magnus
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:46 BST