Dear all,
Maybe Matt has a point about DQ, I don't know, but I write this post as I
think he took a different meaning from my words that I intended.
My meaning was what happens if we take the four donkeys that make up our
four 'sources' of static value patterns and rather than place then one in
front of the other with intellect at the head as the MoQ appears to suggest
we make them walk side by side? I'm not much of an equestrian fan, so I
don't know which setup of donkeys is the best one for pulling the heavy,
congealed quality of ages past. Maybe different horse trainers would give me
different advice. A confused metaphor, but I can't think of a better one at
the minute.
My opinion on DQ is that it's more moral simply because it prevents
ossification and it is its influence that allows the highest quality
decision to be made in each successive moment. That probably still leaves
open the Oakeshott counter-argument, but I still can't get rid of the
feeling that if Oakeshott were to input his values into the existing MoQ
frame he could get them to come out as moral, just as Matt (the
anti-Oakeshott) can input his values and find that they are moral.
It's good to think,
Simon
"In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side." Robert Zimmermann
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
