Hi David B., Platt, Ken and other discussants
In > David B. replies briefly to JM he writes:
> You cheer Platt for saying the MOQ is a moral
> compass, but it really irks you when I say it?
You misread what I said.
I don't accept that the MoQ is a moral compass. I didn't like it when
Platt said it, and I don't like it when you did. What I was cheering was
what I believed to be Platt's demolition of your argument. Maybe Platt
believes that the MoQ is a moral compass, and that you are misreading
it. If that is true, it doesn't bode well for using the MoQ for finding
moral direction. The first rule of compasses is that they should be easy
to read and unambiguous.
>And in what way is Walsby a
> psuedo-philosopher? The hierarchy of ideologies looked like social
> psychology to me.
Okay, I'll own up to knowing nothing about Walsby beyond what you
quoted, which to put it frankly looks to me like plain idiocy. Perhaps
there is more to Walsby than that, but your quote discourages me from
even looking. I'll admit to prejudice, but I don't have time to read
everything, just what appears interesting.
JONATHAN
> > Maybe for my
> > benefit you will try and put [your argument] in SHORT. My own
personal experience
> > as a
> > teacher and writer is that being long winded is a sign I don't
> > understand
> > what I'm talking about.
> >
DAVID B.
> Hey give me a break, will you? I was trying to
> summurize some relatively complicated books and then show the
relevance
> to the MOQ. If it had been any shorter, it might have too
> over-simplified.
And I thought you were trying to present an argument of your own. I know
that
there are many items which discuss whether nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was a good or bad decision. What I did not understand is your apparent
view that all the arguments FOR are social and the arguments AGAINST
intellectual. Will you please explain how you reached this conclusion.
DAVID B.
> you [JM] are refuting a bunch of assertions
> that no one made. Perhaps my post should have been even longer that it
> was. I certainly never suggested that Truman nuked Japan for the fun
of
> it. That is obviously an absurd charge. The assertion that disturbs
you
> most is another one I never made.
That is not an assertion I accused you of. My understanding is that you
consider Truman's real reasons as non-intellectual and therefore not
valid.
> Sweeps all other moral considerations
> aside? No one ever said that, but Lila is an inquiry into morals and I
> have been discussing the moral codes that govern the 4 levels. If
you've
> got some ideas about that, I'd be glad to hear them.
My "idea" is so simple that even a small child could understand. I
believe that the allied leaders were morally obligated to bring the WWII
horrors to a rapid end with a minimum of further suffering. Truman's
decisions should be judged by their outcome in relation to that aim.
Are you saying that "MoQ-directed" moral obligations are different?
>JONATHAN
> > In contrast, . ...despite Ghandi's
> > peaceful
> > nature, the campaign for Indian independence resulted in many more
> > innocent deaths than the two atom bombs together.
> >
DAVID B.
> Yes, ok. Ghandi was great. Millions and
> millions of people have greater freedom because of him and India is
now
> the largest Democracy in the world. That is something worth cheeting.
> But this is the first time I've ever seen his name in the same
sentence
> with Truman. Apples and oranges.
Yes I also think Ghandi was a great man and worthy of the highest
respect.
However, how do you think WWII would have turned out had Ghandi been
the leader of the USA, Britain or Russia? We can't know for sure, but
I'm far from convinced that things would have worked out for the better.
Furthermore, we should be open to the possibility that another leader
may have been able to bring India to independence with *less* actual
violence. Again, we can't know.
JONATHAN
> > Social values are "proven" values
> > based
> > on experience.
> > The intellectual process allows judgement based on extrapolation of
.
> > . .
> > . . . experience (what else).
> >
DAVID B.
> Its just an analogy, but maybe prejudice isn't
> exactly right. The idea, however, is that both of them are prior to
> experience in a sense. They are both applied to our experiences, but
> differ in quality. Don't read prejudice as bigotry and it will seem
less
> objectionable. ...
I don't consider this an analogy. I mean EXTRAPOLATION from experience
in a very real sense.
I also don't equate prejudice with bigotry. If you look above (re:
Walsby), I will unashamedly admit to prejudice and defend it where
appropriate.
> I'm not saying social values are bad, they're just
> inadequate because we are supposed to be intellectual creatures by
now.
> We're supposed to have additional values that are that are more
> advanced, not intellect INSTEAD of social values. (I've had to repeat
> this point many times now.)
But you ARE saying that *ADHERING* to social values is bad, not good
enough, "inadequate".
I say that adhering to any value is bad if it produces a bad outcome,
and good if it produces a good outcome. IMHO the MoQ accepts and
supports this, but doesn't itself provide a scale of good-bad.
JONATHAN
> > Yes David. As an experimental scientists I am very well aware of the
> > difference between the actual experience (the data) and
> > extrapolations, and
> > know their relative values.
> >
DAVID
> I thought that data was extrapolated from the
> actual experience, but you're the scientist.
>
> Oh, by the way, while were on the topic, do you have any
> thoughts on the topic?
> DMB
Actually you're right. Data is extrapolated from primary observation,
secondary experience is extrapolated from primary experience etc. etc.
No-one directly experiences "sitting on a hot stove" directly. Every
"primary experience" itself is extrapolated from some "even more
primary" experience. Pirsig understood that oxymoron and realized that
he could never get to any definable primary absolute, so he invented
Dynamic Quality.
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST