From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 30 2005 - 07:48:06 BST
Jos,
The MoQ and Pirsig's words are not "tablets of stone".
If you read me as turning black and white into (grey) mud, then you
are understanding me correctly.
The only thing black and white about the MoQ Layers is their toplogy,
their arrangement relative to each other, not their absolute postions
/ definitions. The layers we think of as fixed, the four main layers
and any number of static latches within are only "temporarily fixed".
The relationships between them are "dynamic quality".
Either way the static components are only static temporarily. The
inorganic / physical layer over cosmological time-scales (and our more
fleeting intellectual representations thereof), the biological / life
layer over bio-evolutionary timescales, etc ...
It's probably more the case that I missed your main point, by making
the above point in response (it was just an aside).
I think I may agree with your statements in this last post, if I
understand you correctly. You said
"I don't care what the truth is, just what is better, and the "fact" that
viewpoints move relative to their own social context does not alter their
relationship with the underlying moral framework. To summarise, I
maintain that cultures are inherently comparable and that a value
truth can be accurately ascribed to that comparison."
ie the value you are ascribing is only relative, concerned with
"comparison" between cultures or layers. The underlying moral
framework is just another layer with which to make comparisons.
Ian
On 7/29/05, Laycock, Jos (OSPT) <Jos.Laycock@offsol.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> Please accept an apologetic preface to the following remarks, I am almost
> sure that I misunderstand you, and if this is the case then I would be
> grateful for further explanation:
>
> When I read back what you have written all it does is convert black and
> white, into mud.
> I honestly did not intend any specific judgements from what I originally
> wrote but I still maintain that whether or not "we" are directly appraised
> of it, the MOQ has a moral standpoint on all things.
>
> When you say "relatively static latches" what do you mean? The underlying
> dichotomy that is accepted within the MOQ is the difference between static
> and dynamic, so how can you imply that there can be a relativism? Either a
> latch is static or it is not a latch.
> I agree that the mechanisms that generate cultural viewpoints may result
> from dynamic interactions but I don't understand the impact that this
> acceptance has, on an "all seeing MOQ".
> If we were talking about material existence here I would have no problem,
> but I referred to morality and value.
>
> I don't care what the truth is, just what is better, and the "fact" that
> viewpoints move relative to their own social context does not alter their
> relationship with the underlying moral framework.
>
> To summarise, I maintain that cultures are inherently comparable and that a
> value truth can be accurately ascribed to that comparison.
>
> Jos
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> Sent: 29 July 2005 02:54
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Racist Remarks
>
>
> Jos,
>
> Perhaps there is a middle view ...
>
> Say, It is viewpoint specific, but the viewpoints are not wholly
> subjective. What we have is a framework of relatively static latches
> with dynamic mechanisms for shifting them and moving viewpoints
> between them.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
>
> On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
> in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
> for further details.
>
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
>
>
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
> addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
> permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
> and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
> Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
> intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
> whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
>
> This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
> recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
> monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
> at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
> composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
>
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 17:48:13 BST