Roger: Its seems you completely ignored "John Brown's truth" in your
reply. It was right out of Lila and central to several of my answers. I
think this may be an important glitch. In using the MOQ's moral compass,
its usually going to come down to a contest between social and
intellectual level values, as in the case of the bomb, the impeachment,
the civil war and the question on economics. And yet I detect such an
anti-intellectual attitude in your reply...
You reluctantly admit that it might be worth fighting for principles
like freedom and equality is spite of Pirsig's praise of John Brown's
truth.
Your defence of the bombing was just not rational. The "strongest
measure of strenth"? And the number of atom bombs in our arsenal hardly
had anything to do with it. Every one of them should be carefully
placed, regardless of the number. Yes, it was nation against nation, an
inter-level moral conflict in that sense, but Harry Truman made the
decision and he is not a nation, nor should he think like one, not even
as President, not exclusively anyway. Pirsig says that genocide makes
sense in terms of what the "Giant" wants. Human beings ought not think
like Giants lest they become genocidal.
In the case of the impeachment reply, I'm certain that you were
channelling the spirit of RIGEL in his most Victorian mood. C'mon, you
can't reverse a democratically elected leader because he was a naughty
boy. Your opinion seems to be based on disgust for Clinton, which I can
understand, but that is simply not very important compared to Democracy.
The President can be removed if there is reason enough. Nookie is hardly
a reason at all. Its a good reason for Hillary to leave him, but that's
a personal matter.
Your defense of Social Darwinism also demonstrates a lack of respect for
the same principles and is essentially amoral. It was invented by the
Victorians, even before Darwin himself.
Pirsig's moral hierarchy insists that intellectual level values are the
most evolved, dynamic and moral of all static patterns, but you don't
seem to care for them. I think you don't LIKE the MOQ's moral compass. I
mean you are dis-satisfied with the solutions because they contradict
your view of things, not because it fails as an analytical tool.
There's even something anti-intellectual about your brand of mysticism.
You use it as an escape hatch, a parachute or a cup of sugar in the gas
tank. Not that you mentioned it in your reply, but your reply showed me
some of your un-stated attitudes and assumptions. It shows what you
value more than you intended, perhaps? Oh my God! Roger in NOT an
anti-intellectual Victorian? Please tell me its not true!
To put social values over intellectual values would be immoral according
to the MOQ, right?
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 - 16:03:16 BST