Gerhard, Sam, Elizaphanian and all,
Gerhard wrote:
> I do not expect that the goverment is going to force people to experience
dynamic
> qualities, but I have hopes for a goverment giving optimal possibility for
the people to
> experience DQ.
I don't think the State can do that. I think the state can get out of
individuals way and they will experience it for themselves.
Gerhard wrote:
> I must have missed something here. I was of the opinion I was accusing YOU
for beliving
> in Utopia. Maybe Utopia have a different meaning to us - I see Utopia as a
society where
> everybody is belived to be basically good.
I think of Utopia as a perfect world. "Basically good" would not meet my
definition of a Utopia. I do not believe a Utopia is possible.
Gerhard wrote:
> >I was of the opinion that we wanted to experience DQ, and that DQ was
change,
> creativity, chaos, etc. in other words "looking over the edge".
"Wanted to"? "have", "did". I've seen the elephant and know of what I
speak.
Sam wrote:
> The real way to deal with the situation that my friend encountered is to
ensure that it
> is less likely to happen in the future - through better education, a
higher quality (=
> more moral) upbringing and the freedom for local groups to have some
measure of
> authority in their own areas.
The only real way? Perhaps "a" way, surely there is more than one possible
soultion to this problem. I don't know that your solution is such a bad one
though the question in my mind is implementation. I don't think the State
can teach morality and ethics, which is not to say that this isn't a
powerful and important social pattern, it just can't be conveyed very well
by bureacratic organizations. The State can hardly teach people to read and
they want to tackle ethics? No way.
Sam wrote:
> My view is that what has really caused the great increase in violent crime
etc has been
> the state getting involved in all aspects of violent conduct. As there
are now strong
> laws against any form of physical aggression (eg against smacking
children) there is no
> longer any means of developing self-discipline in young men growing up.
Damn that's too bad. I am really glad my father hit me for a couple of the
stupid things I did. He's still alive and we have good relationship.
Sam wrote:
> Without those low level biological controls the situation is bound to
escalate, and
> where firearms are present, people will be killed. Where there are
firearms widely
> available then conflict is more likely to have a fatal outcome.
Define "more likely". Vermont and Alaska both have damn near zero gun laws
and very little crime, nothing on the scale of California. Have you spent
much time around firearms to where you can honestly make this claim? I have
and it seems pretty foundless.
Sam wrote:
> To look at it purely in MoQ terms for a moment this diminishes the
resources available
> for the intellectual level and is therefore a low quality environment, it
is one in
> which the potential to move to higher levels and experience DQ etc is
diminished.
You've lost me. Are you equating maximizing resources for the experience of
dynamic quality as the goal of existence? Where does it say that in Lila?
Elizaphanian you preach and I'll turn the pages!
Could I take this oppurtunity to again stress that the State is not
equivilent to social patterns of quality. The State is large and easily
identifiable but does not nearly encompass the totality of social patterns.
I suspect that most social patterns do not originate with the State but with
the people we grew up with and the people we spend our lives around.
AreteLaugh
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
