RE: MD the worst thing about 9/11 according to the MoQ

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Nov 06 2004 - 02:46:19 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Moral values in the election and in the Bible"

    SAm and all MOQers:

    Sam Norton said:
    As I understand the 'standard' MoQ, the highest value lies with those
    elements on the fourth level, ie what can be 'manipulated with symbols', and
    DQ. When, for example, Pirsig is discussing the American Civil War he gives
    an
    instrumentalist justification, which has no place for the value of people as
    such. ...in the MoQ it is the intellectual construct, the IDEA which is more
    important than the society. ...So far as I can read it aright, the analysis
    of 9/11 from a MoQ point of view would say that those things of highest
    value (fourth level static quality and potential for DQ) were IDEAS, not
    people.

    dmb objected:
    Instrumentalist justification? I think its essentially a moral
    justification.
    Pirsig is isn't saying that math formulas are more important than people,
    he's
    saying that, as far as static patterns go, intellect is worth preserving
    above all BECAUSE of the way they serve and enhance LIFE as we know it.

    Sam replied:
    'Instrumentalist' is a technical term in moral philosophy, I guess you're
    unfamiliar with that sort of thing. ...In other words, the intellect gains
    value as it is instrumental in preserving life etc, it has no value in
    itself ...I think Pirsig would say that intellect has value as SQ, ie it is
    not instrumentally good).

    dmb says:
    There you go again. One day you say that Pirsig gives an "instrumentalist
    justification, which has no place for the value of people as such", only
    ideas - and the next you say Pirsig's intellect "is not instrumentally
    good". And again with suggestion that I'm ignorant, that I should know
    you're using "a technical term in moral philosophy". Sam, you're so eager to
    condemn me that you're tripping all over yourself. You're contradicting
    yourself. In fact, it was your description of an instrumentalist
    justification that made me believe it was a cold and calculating philosophy
    devoid of any moral sense that made me object. Your scolding correction that
    its about "preserving life" should be directed at yourself insofar as you
    gave the opposite impression, that the MOQ's highest value is "IDEAS, not
    people".

    Pirsig in chapter 24:
    "...to the question, 'What is the purpose of all this intellectual
    knowledge?' the MOQ answers, 'the fundamental purpose of knowledge is to
    Dynamically improve and preserve society'."

    Sam said:
    My point is that the standard MoQ has no locus of value corresponding to
    people as such, therefore people (whether they exist or not in the MoQ) are
    of only indirect concern - what is of value is the IDEA. I'm not sure you've
    grasped my point here.

    dmb says:
    I think your oncoherent point is based on a misconception of the self. You
    think that because Pirsig has rejected the notion of the isolated ego self
    as anything more than a conventional construct, then there are no such
    things as people. Its not that I fail to grasp this point, it that I think
    its entirely ridiculous! And your lame attempt to paint the MOQ as heartless
    and amoral is equally ridiculous.

    dmb had said:
    It seems to me that if we followed the logic of Sam's interpretaton all the
    way through to the end, we might conclude that the MOQ supports a genocide
    against all the stupid people.

    Sam replied:
    Please do explain why the MoQ would see this as a bad thing (starting from
    the axiom that 'stupid people' are incapable of generating positive value in
    fourth level SQ and overall DQ terms). The more I ponder this the more I
    think it is a major problem for the MoQ. But as you know, I've gone into
    elements of this before.

    dmb says:
    The MOQ advocates genocide against stupid people? You can seriously
    entertain the thought? I find it impossible to take such a thoutht
    seriously. It was intended to point out the absurity of your position and
    instead of objecting with vigor, you've embraced the ridiculous.

    More later,
    dmb

    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 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 03:25:30 GMT