JONATHAN TRIES TO COMBINE SEVERAL RECENT THREADS
The subject of this post is CHOICES.
1. Choosing what we post with care (for Lithien, Paul V., Horse)
2. Choosing our agenda (for Paul V., Mary, Ken)
3. Nature's vs. Human choice and morality (for Ken)
4. Choosing compassion and love (for Rob S., Fintan)
Dear LilaQs,
What a pity that this has degenerated to such an extent. Horse (as
list administrator) called Paul Vogel to order, and then Lithien flew
into a rage at Horse for his authoritarianism.
First, let me say that I'm not surprised. I never liked the formal
charter, and planned to vote against it ...
oh, I forgot - we were never granted explicit democratic powers to,
control the charter.
<<<The Charter and Rules of MOQ_DISCUSS are subject to addition or
modification under the guidance of the list administrator. Any additions
or modifications will be posted to the list with reasons given.>>>
Never mind that for now. I basically agree with Horse's motivation.
To Lithien and Paul,
Please take the time to edit your posts for the convenience of its
recipients. Your posts display a lack of CARE. I personally spend a
great deal of time editing and cross-referencing before I post. Stuff
mailed with insufficient CARE lacks QUALITY. Lithien, I know you resent
Horse telling you how to post, but it is up to you to make a moral
CHOICE to obey some rules of netiquette for the benefit of us all.
On a more substantive issue, Paul Vogel was quite rude about Mary's
dismissal of Dr. Pierce's ideas. Before commenting on this, I visited
http://www.natvan.com/ and read a couple of articles purportedly written
by Pierce. That was enough to convince me that Pierce is a racist,
anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi. I concur with Ken CLARK's remarks to you on (12
Jan) in http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0094.html
<<<With these thoughts in mind I privately warned Mary not to carry on a
discussion with you since I thought this particular philosophy was not a
fit subject for discussion on the Squad. I invite you to clarify your
philosophical leanings. >>>
I agree that a neo-fascist agenda is not appropriate in the Lila Squad.
The decision of what we CHOOSE to discuss and what we reject is a moral
choice. I will dismiss Dr. Pierce's views on moral grounds. He quite
simply is not worthy of my consideration.
For the remainder of my post, I want to deal with something Ken Clark
has brought up a few times e.g. in the same post I already quoted
above:-
<<<That is why I separate universal Quality and Human Quality in my
mind. The two are not always compatible. The first area of agreement we
need to thresh out is the definition of Quality, Value, good, and
morality in terms of our true position in the universe.>>>
Ken also wrote (6 Jan) in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0036.html
> Q values possibility. Ken
This reminds me of the idea that DQ is possibility or
potential, and a proposition of mine
> "Morality is realization of potential".
which I posted back on 19th July. Ken will note that this has an
entirely scientific "universal" meaning and a "human" meaning. The
current paradigm is that potential can be realised in many different
ways. The rain falling on the mountain will follow the downhill
potential, but there is no certainty it will find the route which takes
it down the farthest. If one does a complicated protein folding
calculation, one realises that it is almost impossible to find the
absolute lowest energy state, and there may be no folding pathway to
achieve it. Once a particular pathway is chosen (e.g. by chance), some
alternatives are no longer open. It's all a question of CHOICE.
Let's to come back to Ken's question, is there a difference between
universal and human morality?
On 24 Nov I wrote in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9811/0275.html
<<<I now realise that it is stupid to talk about "morality" from
anything other than the human perspective. We can't make moral
judgements about anything other than our own behaviour, because that's
the only thing we
control. Intellect is nothing more than a tool for analysing the likely
outcome of alternative behaviours.>>>
To look at the CHOICES nature makes is to observe and collect data.
Nature's choices are indeed universal morality, but they are not choices
we influence. Human morality is human behaviour and human CHOICES.
Harmony demands that we behave in a harmonious way that exploit
tendencies within nature, not ALL natural tendencies, but those which we
value. Now I can come back to my utter rejection of Paul Vogel's
Cosmotheism as I understand it. Dr. Pierce wants to encourage and
exploit natural human tendencies to race-hate and chauvinism. My
personal MORAL CHOICE is to encourage equally natural human tendencies
in the opposite direction of compassion and love.
Love to all,
Jonathan
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 - 16:02:49 BST