Hi Todd, Marco, Jonathan, and All,
In MoQ terms, the Giant is the structural logic which
holds together accumulated social patterns
(corporations, governments, schools, churches) left
behind by the creative force. Therefore I think the
following question by Jonathan is, as Bo says,
misleading:
<<1. Is the Giant conscious of its own behaviour in
the same way that the
individual person is conscious of his/her own
behaviour?>>
I don't see the Giant as 'behaving' in any sense at
all. It is rather static social patterns which behave
in accordance with the Giant's logic.
Regarding Jonathan's question, Todd said:
<<I would infer an answer of "no", and rather think
that the giant is yet
evolving into self awareness, but I would also
question how much is an
individual conscious of his/her own behavior most of
the time? (Was Lila more
self aware than Phaedrus?)>>
I think this is a key question when we start to
consider how the Giant can effectively be challenged.
If our individual social patterns for the most part
reflect the Giant's structural logic, then these
social patterns can and will filter out and suppress
those creative forces which appear to challenge this
logic.
Marco writes:
<<1. The Giant is ALIVE. (not biologically, of
course)>>
Perhaps the only truly living thing in MoQ terms is
the creative force, and all else is residual static.
<<The Giant is that "something too big to be
defeated". It's not just composed
by single people: in fact everyone told my friend "I
understand you, but I
can't do anything", but their individual behavior had
to respond to a
different logic. This logic is the real "nature" of
the Giant. We can try to
change a Giant's decision, but there's no certainty
about the result.>>
I agree with all of this.
<<2. The Giant is CONSCIOUS and HAS a WILL.>>
Again, I think the conscious one is the particular
individual or team that brainstormed the solution to
this particular traffic problem and not the Giant.
Their will was based on the principles of the Giant.
Had their will not followed the Giant's logic, we can
assume their solution would have been rejected by a
higher authority.
<<5. AND IF WE WANT TO BE FREE?
We have two chances.
The former (static) is to come to an agreement with
the Giant. Actually,
money seems to be the unit of measurement of the
damage: the Giant takes
money from people (taxes) and pays us for our
disturb.>>
This reminded me of the recent protesters at Vieques,
Puerto Rico who will soon be receiving up to $40
million in economic aid for the inconvenience of
living on a US Navy target range. But I don't think
selling out to the Giant is any type of freedom.
<<The latter (dynamic) is to use a different logic.
Want do you think it would
be happened if the whole citizenship did not agree
with that decision? Only
public opinion is able to control the Giant.>>
Yes! Dynamic Quality- the creative force. But the
mammoth task would be to persuade the whole
citizenship that your logic is better that the
existing one. How do you accomplish this in today's
world? Through what channels? Politics? Education?
Literature? Internet discussion groups? And then,
who's to say that your alternative logic having
eventually succeeded in overthrowing the existing
Giant wouldn't turn out after all to be a degenerate
masquerading as a savior?
Mark B
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST