From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:00:29 GMT
Hi Platt,
Let me just say that even though I disagree with you about many things, I'm glad you're here. (I'm
glad that DMB is here too, I'm not making a point about who I agree with).
> > So, my (deliberately provocative) assertion was: according to the MoQ, the
> > worst thing about 9/11 was the loss of the ideas in all the victim's heads.
> > Which seems to be morally absurd - but which seems to me to be a logical
> > consequence of the above two elements of the MoQ.
>
> Right, except it was also the loss of potential ideas that might have been
> essential to the evolution of morality.
OK. But you then go down the route of probablity, ie how many ideas were likely to come, etc etc,
which I think ends up resolving to not very much additional value, for the most part.
> Well, logically we must presume one for there to be many, i.e., there must
> be "thing" (whole) for there to be a conglomerate (parts).
That's what I had thought RMP was objecting to, but see my other post on this.
> It can be defended only by faith in a reality where Jane Doe and all other
> human beings are merely points light (little selves) representing an
> eternal light (big Self), each shining for a brief time and then burning
> out.
Interesting image. I'm still getting my head around the big self/ little self division (I'm familiar
with other mystical descriptions about the loss of ego self etc, and I had assumed this was
analogous. I'm no longer so sure)
> To say "people are value" doesn't help much because in the MOQ, all things
> are value, just that some things are of more value than others.
Precisely so.
> As I read the MOQ, people are means to the end of moral evolution.
Which is what I worry about. I'm not sure I'm happy to describe any metaphysics which treats people
as means to an end as 'moral'.
> Isn't a person logically necessary as being the manipulator of abstract
> symbols? We're not all robots -- yet.
I think so, but I'm not sure the MoQ agrees.
> You raise a most interesting question, Sam.
I do my best, even when I'm confused and confusing :o)
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:24:46 GMT