ROGER'S INPUT ON THE ANSWERS
Specific feedback to David B and L, Ken, Mary and Platt:
**********************
To David B:
DMB:
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.
ROGER:
I concur on the Civil war Q. My reluctance was to just ever actually agree
with you. (I am only half serious)
I still think there is an inconsistency in the MOQ on wars that are not
fought over the protection of intellectual values of freedom and equal
opportunity. How can a million intellectual-source deaths be justified to
protect society? Isn't that society over intellect?
DMB:
Your defence of the bombing was just not rational. Human beings ought not
think
like Giants lest they become genocidal.
ROGER:
I agree with your last statement. Social values are barbaric. Thank God for
the intellect. However, in a social conflict the intellectual weapons are
often emasculated by shear power. I am not happy about this , but we need to
be pragmatic. As for my being "unrational", which portion of my truth was not
internally consistent or valuable within experience? Also, I do have history
(Truman's gambit was succesful from a social level) and I believe at least a
majority of responses from others within the Squad are on my side. I know
this doesn't negate your view, but it may cause you to consider if you are
stuck in one truth.
DMB:
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.
ROGER:
The issue as I understand it was about perjury. The US constitution has many
checks and balances. Congress and the Impeachment process are two balances
to the President. The process worked and in the end he was victorious. I am
fine with that....really.
You accuse me of being Victorian for some reason. Trust me, nothing could be
farther from the truth. However, as a person of power, I am aware that it is
wrong to use that power to get young ladies under my influence to have sex.
I actually think people make too big of a deal about the Hillary
angle...there are lots of acceptable marital values that I could accept and
that society now accepts. I certainly have no concerns with consentual
sodomy. It is the abuse of power that I am appalled at.
DMB:
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.
ROGER:
What did I say that was amoral? I would like to correct myself. Oh, and be
careful about judging an argument by its source...isn't that one of the
Aristotelian fallacies?
DMB:
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.
ROGER:
I value them where they apply. As you stated so well, they don't apply to
the lion and the lamb. Platt, Ken and I don't think they apply in all wars
either.
DMB:
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.
ROGER:
I love the tool and the method. It is your dogmatic one truth version on
reality that scares me.
DMB:
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.
ROGER:
Likewise, Kimosabe.
***************************
To Platt:
I can only say I agreed with everything you wrote on the Q's and comments.
It shouldn't be too surprising, as you and I always seem to be able to find
some common ground despite frequent dissimilar starting points.
***************************
To Mary:
MARY WROTE:
2) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Congress in the Impeachment
Process of President Clinton? Poorly. Clinton's actions were biological
level ones occurring between two consenting adults. At no time was the
state endangered by his activity. The House of Representatives violated
the MOQ hierarchy by attempting to destroy the continuity of a popular
Presidency by imposing constricting Victorian social level values. Note
that you did not ask about the morality of Clinton's choosing to lie to
the public about the situation
ROGER:
The impeachment WAS about perjury I thought. ( i just got DL's summary of the
issues and thought they were very high in quality)
Mary, I also, I enjoyed your insights on the ecological costs of economic
decisions.
************************
And to Ken:
Your abortion angle makes the judgement much tougher. I would probably
encourage she abort at three months, but.....?
As for the other two, I would have to answer like David, with a plee for
intellectual solutions. Soviet imperialism would lead me to some type of
alliance of countries that mutually agree to resist this social bear. The
Greenhouse issue I would solve with a multi national effort to eradicate
emmisions and replenish forests. Economic (social) sanctions would be the
method of ensuring compliance (though this is a form of Nation-state
Darwinism). Both of these solutions involve intellectually guided social
solutions.
By the way,despite recent allegations of being a nihilist, I do not share you
and your daughter's pessimism on the future. One of the benefits of a moral
universe is that it will tend to always become more moral. Even set-backs
become the fuel for further advancement. Synergy and competition are very
different patterns, yet individually both tend to lead to higher quality...
and together along with DQ and static latches they further re-enforce the
drive to higher value.
But I could be wrong.......
Roger
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