Hi Everyone
This months elected topic is from Marco:
"Is democracy the best (most moral) option for the q-social level?"
Of course I'm not longing for totalitarianism, but I think our modern democracies are far from
being perfect. Is the will of the majority enough to declare what's right and what's wrong?
For example, has the majority of a democratic nation like the USA the right to require the
capital punishment? And is it moral that the main gauge for a statesman to take a decision
is the voice of the majority?
I'm your discussion facilitator for October so the normal rules apply. Please try to keep on
topic and relevant to the MOQ.
The voting results are shown below
Thanks
Horse
######################################################
1. Mark
(3 votes)
Mark, Andreas, Magnus
"My interpretation that S/O is Q-Intellect puts the QUALITY
idea in a position as some groping 5th level. From there
abstract/concrete has no jurisdiction outside intellect's
own circle.
Intellect has been out to de-throne social value and
promote its own universality. The MOQ as a fifth level will
do exactly the same: Its purpose is to check Intellect and
elevate itself to universality. It says: The static
sequence is neither abstract nor concrete, that is
intellect's game, my game is DQ/SQ!"
(Bodvar to MF, Sept. 2000)
Should we equate subject/object thinking with the MOQ's 4th
level?
2. Dan
(0 votes)
"I tend to see the development of language as evolutionary valuing of
preconditioned subject/object awareness. For example, Bo once mentioned
Helen Keller and her struggle to gain knowledge to communicate with
others. Metaphorically seen in her light, certainly we humans possessed
language skills before civilization, but without a preconditional way
(language in humans) in which to communicate, social structures would
have no value latching opportunities. Before civilization as
historically recorded, humans lived and thrived and died for tens and
hundreds of thousands of years quite possibly in tribal\family units,
which again value preconditioned communication. I seriously doubt there
could be language as we know it without preconditioned subject/object
awareness."
(...sounds like a wonderful topic suggestion for October.)
This "preconditioned way" reminds me of Chomsky's theory of
Universal Grammar- that we have innate language properties
metaphorically embodied in a 'little black box' or Language
Acquisition Device (LAD). This might explain our radical
acquisition of language (3-4 years!) in spite of its
complex system of rules. So then would there have been
something about the early grammar of the pre-Subject-Object
language that rendered it unprepared for self-conscious
awareness? and what might this something have been?
3. Marco
(4 votes)
Richard, Todd, Marco, Horse
"I would like to discuss democracy. Is democracy the best (most moral)
option for the q-social level?"
Of course I'm not longing for totalitarianism, but I think our modern
democracies are far from being perfect. Is the will of the majority enough to declare what's
right and what's
wrong? For example, has the majority of a democratic nation like the USA the right to
require the capital
punishment? And is it moral that the
main gauge for a statesman to take a decision is the voice of the majority?
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:27 BST