From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Aug 08 2004 - 07:41:01 BST
Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value
On Saturday, August 07, 2004 at 1:54 PM, msh wrote:
>
> In poking around your website, I've read many interesting ideas. The
> first one to catch my attention was this:
> "Today we find ourselves terrorized by a horde of suicidal fanatics
> bent on destroying Western Civilization in the name of a deity that
> shows no regard for the value of human life."
> And I thought to myself, yes these fanatics might very well destroy
> Western Civilization but, for the last few years at least, their
> brutal fanaticism has been focused on mass destruction in the Middle
> East and Central Asia, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan,
> resulting so far, in the slaughter of maybe 30,000 innocents.
Yes, I agree. They're essentially barbarians.
> Then I thought, in defense of those who are comforted by
> Christianity, it seems unfair to attribute to the Christian God no
> regard for human life, just because these fanatics, who claim they
> are acting in his name, have none.
Where did I attribute this to the Christian God?
> But then I read this, and saw the light:
> "Those entrusted with the security of our land look to public polls
> for the issues and judgments that will determine its future."
> Hand-slap to forehead. Damn. He's talking about Muslim extremists,
> not the Bush administration! And then was wafted my way the sickly
> scent of jingoism. But I kept reading anyway.
No partisan politics were intended here. This is how all state governments
work. The point I am trying to make in my preface is simply that we--as a
nation--have lost our moral compass and have no viable substitute.
> I then turned to your sixth essay, on Freedom, and was greeted by
> wonderfully waving American Flag. Here I read:
> "In the interest of America's future, I would add a caveat of my own:
> A free society is not immune to the laws of gravity; left to its own
> devices it runs downhill."
This section is about the value and preservation of Freedom in all its
aspects--national, social, and personal [existential]. I see no
inconsistency here. You are taking statements out of context in order to
fabricate conclusions which may be amusing but are invalid. Other than the
fact that you scorn patriotism, I fail to see the purpose of this exercise.
> Yes, I thought. And this would be the perfect place to mention the
> most recent attacks on freedom in America, such as the Patriot Acts,
> and other legislation. But I was disappointed. Instead there's
> this:
> "History has shown that establishing and maintaining a free society
> is typically a hard-won struggle led by enlightened individuals who
> appreciate its value and are ever vigilant to protect it from those
> who through public apathy, geopolitical envy, religious fanaticism,
> or the abuse of power would allow its downfall."
> This is the myth of the enlightened leader as the catalyst of
> freedom. The reality is that freedoms are won, and maintained,
> through the combined efforts of countless individuals, almost all of
> whom struggle, and often die, and remain nameless.
Do you deny that enlightened leaders are catalysts in the establishment of a
free society? (I like that phrase!) What is your point?
> Then comes:
> "The legacy of secularism has fostered a generation of morally
> bankrupt dependents who worship at the altar of Celebrity and submit
> only to an ethic of "political correctness", as if existence had no
> other purpose."
Now you've returned to the preface which, as I explained above, refers to
the moral turpitude of our nihilistic society.
> I'm always concerned when so much negativity is blamed on poor old
> secularism. So now, it's clear that you not only have a nationalist
> agenda, but a religious one as well.
> I then hopped to your "Value In The Balance" page where I'm treated
> to another waving American flag, and I get a chance to see your two
> agendas coalesce with a third, political agenda: Anyone who might
> suggests that terrorism is not the greatest danger we face is one of
> those "liberals" behind the "Hate Bush" campaign.
I happen to have a conservative viewpoint, not a "political agenda". Again,
it is consistent with the application of Value in our society as I see it.
The addition of the "Value in Balance" page is an attempt to satisfy viewers
who seem to need the metaphysics demonstrated in socio-economic examples.
I'm sorry you consider this "flag waving", msh, and sorrier still that you
did not put at least some of your creative effort into critiquing the
central thesis. (It might have been even more fun!)
Essentially yours,
Ham
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 08 2004 - 08:01:43 BST