Greetings,
Platt tries to throw off my argument by calling me a theist. Actually, I
am an atheist, so his description of my morality is way off.
PLATT:
'Take "God" out of Struan's argument that Pirsig is a copy cat and the
argument collapses.'
So if God is left in, it doesn't collapse and if all I mean by God is
that God is the essence of Good then Platt has conceded my point and
with it his whole objection. I didn't pin any other simplistic
attributes onto God, Platt. That was you!
Platt then returns to his circular argument for the believers. They are
convinced already, Platt. My point is merely that academic philosophers
will not wear that kind of argument because it contains its conclusion
in one of its premises. This is not missing the point of the moq,
(indeed, it isn't even a comment on the veracity of the moq), it is
making the point that bad arguments are no way to establish anything
with academic philosophers.
As for the US leaders being incapable of ruling society. I didn't say
that. It was simply the logical conclusion of Platt's argument. I happen
to think the US government is doing an excellent job in many ways - not
least in their restrained and entirely reasonable response to the events
of the 11th. Platt though not only thinks that they are incapable of
ruling society, but now adds that they are not actually ruling at all.
Ruling surely means making laws and enforcing them. That is what
government means Platt. Or are the Congress, Whitehouse, Pentagon, DEA,
police, FBI, CIA, National Guard, army, navy, air force, tax department,
law courts etc, etc figments of my imagination? The president sits
around all day doing nothing, the congressional representatives get
pissed in the bar and the populous do precisely what they want? Hmmm . .
. Platt lives in the USA, hasn't even noticed that there is a government
ruling his society, and yet accuses me of having 'an astounding lack of
understanding'. I rest my case.
Horse makes three false accusations.
1) Struan rejects metaphysics.
2) Struan doesn't phrase his postings well.
3) Struan resorts to insulting and evasion when he loses an argument.
No reasons, no evidence, and no comment on the substantial points I
made. Nothing about the moq, nothing about philosophy, no attempt to
construct an argument. Just mild insults, falsehoods and black and white
thinking. That being the case I can't argue back in any reasonable way
without stooping once again to Horse's level. I would point out though
that it is this level of contribution, which, combined with Horse's
takeover plan coming to fruition, has left the 'focus' group floundering
and the website stagnant.
You need quality people at the top folks. That is the problem with the
focus group and the website - Diana leaving and nobody competent taking
over to give it direction. Such a shame.
I'm flying to Malta shortly so will not reply again. See you in a few
months for the next instalment. I consider exposing this kind of rank
nonsense as a moral duty.
Struan
-------------------
Struan Hellier
struan@clara.co.uk
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST