From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 23:20:21 BST
Hi Kevin and all,
Wow, thanks for the attention, I'm flattered. First of all, this humbles me
to the point that I feel I must apologize for my brash style, it stems from
a combination of excitement, niavete, and defensiveness, and I suppose more
than a little bit of anger towards a general trend in our culture to turn
morality into a question of ethics. To those who have been ticked off by
that, please accept my apology: I'm full of zeal and don't mean to be as
brash or insulting as I occasionaly have been, it's not at you but the world
that Johnny Moral is hopping mad at. (Do you like the name? Kind of
post-punk, no?) I really appreciate the converstations I've had with people
here, and enjoy reading the threads, even when I don't find any way to
interject expectation into them.
I'll try and write a concise reply tomorrow, but for now, yes Kevin, you
pretty much understand me. I see DQ as amorally extending SQ into the
future, and it is SQ that determines if we say it is good or bad.
big headedly,
Johnny Moral
>From: "Kevin" <kevin@xap.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: MD Understanding Johnny Moral
>Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:24:41 -0800
>
>Hi all,
>
>Johnny has become the newest grain of sand around which a pearl of
>conversation is trying to protectivly form.
>
>I can't say that I understand all of what Johnny is trying to say (his
>stuff on expectation and love thoroughly confuse me) but I do think I
>have some angle on at least on aspect of his project that has emerged in
>the Burden of Proof and Intellectual Art (Dynamic Morality) threads.
>
>I'd like to try and bring it together (hence new thread) and at least
>test my theory (that I get something Johnny is on about) and see if the
>pearl can be saved.
>
>Johnny says:
>There's still no problem, steve. Unless you are insane, or didn't
>experience a common set of static patterns with the rest of us, most of
>us
>would agree with you on what we feel is actually better.
>
>So we both see "moral" as meaning "actually better", but we seem to
>disagree
>about the role of culture and SQ in deciding the truth of what is
>actually
>better. You think it comes from 'outside' (along with such concepts as
>"Truth" and "Beauty", I suppose), I don't think there is anything
>'outside',
>and better is determined by a consensus steeped in common static
>patterns.
>If you've got a crystal ball or something, and some way to quantify the
>good, let us see it.
>
>Kevin:
>In this statement, I think I caught a glimpse of something at the
>foundation of Johnny's POV (please correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps
>it's just selective cognition because it reminds me of something I tried
>to illuminate back in Dec in a thread called Progression and
>Benevolence.
>
>Namely, when we talk about "good", "true", "better", or "morally
>superior" in MOQ, are they actually products of DQ or are they our own
>projections? Johnny asks the same thing (I think) by speculating on
>whether it's "outside" or something that comes from static patterns.
>
>I think Johnny is attacking the notion that DQ is benevolent--i.e. that
>it pushes towards "good" or "better" or "morally superior". I think he's
>saying it's just a morally neutral push and deciding it's morality or
>goodness comes much later and is a product of static patterns not DQ
>(maybe this is the expectation part?).
>
>Change happens. DQ pushes on static patterns and causes flux. We look at
>how patterns cope and change in the face of this flux and we ascribe
>Good or Bad to it. It's not that DQ is Benevolent or Malevolent (vested
>in one outcome over another).
>
>To quote myself from the Progress and Benevolence thread:
>
>I'm reminded of the classic Chinese proverb regarding good luck and bad
>luck. It follows:
>
>There once was a farmer in China who had an ox. One day the ox ran away.
>
>All his neighbors came to console him, but he was not distressed. He
>told them, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A few days later the ox
>returned and with it was a horse. All his neighbors came to him to
>congratulate him on his good fortune, but again he would not mind them
>telling them, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A week later his son was
>
>riding the horse, fell and broke his arm. Again the neighbors came to
>wish him condolences and tell him how very unlucky he was. The farmer
>shook his head and said, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A few days
>later, war was declared and all able-bodied young men were conscripted,
>but because on his son's broken arm, he was not. "Good luck, bad luck,
>who knows?"
>
>The quality of the luck is a subjective projection based on POV. None of
>
>these events are inherently good or bad, they just are. Applying good or
>
>bad is simply an exercise in coping skills--An attempt to assign either
>benevolence or malice to the universe for the sake of our own interests.
>
>
>In each instance, the Farmer refrains from
>ascribing Benevolence or Malevolence to the Universe. When the ox runs
>away, the Farmer does NOT bemoan the 'unfairness' of it all. Perhaps
>even more telling, IMO, is that the Farmer does NOT take the opposite
>view either, i.e. expressing the sentiment that "It will work out for
>the best" or "God works in mysterious ways" or some other ascription of
>Hope. The Farmer instead (and wisely, IMO) withholds his own petty,
>finite, limited perspective and judgment and allows for the Universe to
>decide whether this thing is bad or good.
>
>The Farmer awaits the TAO.
>
>Does this parallel your ideas somewhat, Johnny?
>
>Anyone have thoughts about it?
>
>-Kevin
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 Apr 03 2003 - 23:20:39 BST