Re: MD James's inversion

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 21:47:05 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD Metaphysics of Quality: An oxymoron?"

    Hi Squonk,

    "But Social patterns are robust don't you feel? They are not that easily
    killed off."

    They are not so robust, look at the divorce rate. Divorce was once almost
    unheard of, unmentioned. Though there have always been divorces, they were
    always unexpected. Now it is a possibility hovering over every marriage,
    making marriage meaningless - killed off - there is no expectation that a
    marriage will last through the next ten minutes, that pattern has been
    destroyed. A marriage is expected to end in divorce today, turning a
    marriage into an empty shell that conveys no expectation of the couple's
    commitment and love.

    Patterns are only held together by moral imperatives, and those moral
    imperatives are being erased - the very idea of a moral imperative is
    attacked, people feel moral imperatives should be destroyed because they are
    moral imperatives. The only reason men and women feel devotion and
    commitment to each other and love each other because it is moral to do so.

    Even biological patterns are not as robust as you seem to imagine. Human
    clones have been born, as well as thousands of babies born via sperm
    donation, people who are not the manifestation of a male and female's love
    for one another, but of marketing-influenced decisions and scientific
    experimentation, products designed by and for the Giant.

    There is a very real possibility that all people could come to be created
    this way, the world over, and the idea of a human couple who make a private
    decision to reproduce their self in a child that they then raise as they see
    fit will be morally repugnant and illegal, if not outright impossible due to
    universal infertility. I don't see how we could allow people to continue
    to have children that haven't been screened for various genetic
    shortcomings, or who don't have the same genetic enhancements that rich
    couples enjoy. And I don't see how we can contnue to allow so-called
    "parents" to continue to have dominion over young people who are created by
    and for they technological system's benefit. "Parents" themselves will be
    screened for their qualifications to raise an acceptable citizen, nothing
    more than temporary care-givers.

    No pattern is robust if the driving force of morality is under attack.
    Patterns should do what they should, people should be moral. That should be
    obvious, but instead people feel pattens should be thwarted. That's nothing
    short of blasphemy, which IS still a crime in my state.

    Johnny

    >From:
    >Reply-To:
    >To:
    >Subject: Re: MD James's inversion
    >Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:30:05 EDT
    >
    >But this dynamicism of intellectual level patterns seems to give less
    >credibility to any particular idea - if in ten years it may not exist, why
    >is it moral for a fleeting idea to kill off (or harm) society?
    >
    >Hi Johnny,
    >Too much beer the night before huh? I know the feeling as a beer lover
    >myslef. (But keep that strictly to yourself as i don't wish to gain the
    >reputation
    >of a lush? OK?)
    >
    >You raise a good point. But Social patterns are robust don't you feel? They
    >are not that easily killed off. If it be the case that intellectual
    >patterns
    >begin to undermine social patterns so that society becomes pathological,
    >then by
    >definition that is a low Quality state for the happiness and well being of
    >Human life. Having said that, intellectual patterns can and do raise
    >Quality of
    >life, as with the irradication of poverty, disease, and privilege of power.
    >At
    >least, that is a good harmonising state to be in when it is achieved?
    >squonk

    _________________________________________________________________
    Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

    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 -

    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 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 21:52:32 BST