On 6 Jul 2000, at 20:17, Richard Budd wrote:
> Hey Horse,
> You know, you're right... you don't post often enough....
Rick, Horse and Focus.
I agree to the above.
Hope you don't mind me entering the dialogue which I have followed
while on the road. Rick seems to have qualms about the MOQ as a
moral guide while Horse defends it. Having escaped the dangers of
traffic (upon returning to our own goat-paths filled with German
"wohnwagens" and big trucks) I possibly risk to be "whipped
through the MOF" if starting to speak of my cure-all remedy again.
The mere notion of looking to the MOQ for guidance in my daily life
never crosses my mind. It's a big difference between declaring all
existence to be a moral development to presenting it as an golden
rule for all occasions. "Do we need anyone to tell us what's
good....etc" as it says in the ZMM quotation? Why not simply look
upon the Intellectual level as the highest moral plane and its ethics
as the usual HUMAN-ETHICS?
The big question is if the fundamentalists of all religious
denominations will be happy about seeing their bibles and stone
tables as part of a new system - even if it is its highest level -
because this system says that there are goodness below and that
the development continues. Equally disappointed are the religious
sceptics (isn't it strange how believers and sceptics of the SOM-
world are each other's constitutents? I have some experience now
from newspaper debates with both) who can't understand what hit
them when the MOQ is wielded. Well, I don't know, but it gives me
great peace of mind.
Bo
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST