From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 17:38:09 BST
Hi Sam,
On 7 Aug 2005 at 15:41, Sam Norton wrote:
msh 7-30-05:
Ok, I see your point. Let's agree that actions can be evaluated as
B- D, S-D, I-D, and we'll forget about individuals. Just so we can
be clear on how actions are to be classified, let's imagine that we
are told by trusted authorities that our planet is being invaded by
inter- galactic forces bent on destroying us. How would you
classify the following actions:
1) Huddling in a a cave with a stockpile of guns and ammo
2) Passing laws to insure that inter-galactic travel is highly
regulated
3) Seeking to verify that the the threat is real, before opting for
1, 2, or some other course of possibly exacerbating action.
If we can agree that 1 is B-D, 2 is S-D, and 3 is I-D, then I think
we can proceed.
sam 08-07-05:
Now then, I'm not sure this all follows. I'm happy to accept that 3
is I-D and 2 is S-D (law being by definition S-D), but option 1 could
- in particular circumstances - be the most I-driven option.
<snip War of the Worlds>
I'm sure we can agree on an example which was B-D in this situation.
How about 'doing nothing except seeking food and shelter'?
msh 08-10-05:
I think an important aspect of purely biological behavior is a lack
of concern for anyone other than self, with the possible exception of
the protection of one's offspring. I say possible because a case can
be made that protecting one's biological offspring is protecting
one's own gene pool, and therefore is also self-centered.
So, I'd say the B-D response to the possibility of alien attack would
be seeking food and shelter for oneself, rather than working together
with others for communal food, shelter, and protection.
Then S-D would be passing of laws to insure that inter-galactic
travel is highly regulated, as well as deployment of defensive or
offensive societal forces against the perceived threat.
The I-D individual, the Intellectual, will attempt to verify that the
S-D perceived threat is real. If the threat is non-existent, or
exaggerated for BD-SD purposes, the I-D individual will work to
reveal this fact. If the threat is genuine and not exaggerated, the
I-D individual will work with others within the limits of her society
to shape the highest quality course of action.
Ok?
msh 07-30-05:
Further, intellectuals may and certainly do have disagreements about
what constitutes a "high-quality" idea, but, among intellectuals,
there is a certain procedure for working this out for themselves:
discussion and arguments, based on evidence, derived from
experience.
Can you accept this protocol? If so, we can proceed.
sam 08-07-05:
I think I would want to add something in about aesthetics, and also
that someone can remain attached to their position even when the
evidence is against them - and yet be proven right in the long run.
In other words, I want to explicitly respect the sovereignty of
individual conscience.
msh 08-10-05:
Will, this will be problematic, I think. What you are saying is that
you want to reserve the right to believe what you really, really want
to believe, regardless of evidence and argument to the contrary. Of
course, no one can take that right from you, but this is not an
honest form of philosophical investigation. What's wrong with simply
conceding the point, then opening the case again, later, when and if
evidence in support of your position becomes available?
sam 08-07-05:
I see this as the consequent of accepting the notion 'I might be
wrong'. In other words, just because I have made an absolute knock
down argument and you're impersonating the Black Knight ('Look you
stupid bastard you've got no arms left....') _doesn't_ actually mean
that I'm right. It just means that, on the evidence so far, the
higher quality arguments go one way not another. But we've got to
leave room for DQ, and humility.
msh 08-10-05:
The quadriplegic Knight is being brave, not humble, not reasonable,
and also not very smart. See my comment above. The humble, and
honest, thing to do is to concede the point, then reopen the case
when and if DQ strikes and new evidence becomes available.
sam 08-07-05:
Other than that, fine. Let's get on with it.
msh 08-10-05:
Ok, as long as you promise to be reasonable and smart. I don't care
whether or not you're humble.
Here's the quote used a hundred times a year to justify the "kill 'em
all like germs" theory of social defense:
"Intellectuals must find biological behavior, no matter what its
ethnic connection, and limit or destroy destructive biological
patterns with complete moral ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys
germs, before those biological patterns destroy civilization itself."
For now, let's leave this quote out of context and analyze it for
meaning, on its own. The first clause tells us that I-D individuals
(not BD-SD individuals) must determine what is and what is not a
threat to society. The third clause makes it clear that, once a
possible threat is verified as genuine, the I-D individual has TWO
options: limiting or destroying the threat, which means working with
others within the Social Level to incarcerate or kill the threatening
biological patterns.
Now, since the biological patterns we're concerned with here are
human beings, and since human beings contain ideas, and it's wrong
for Society to destroy ideas, it's wrong for Society to kill human
beings when they are no immediate threat to Society. That is,
"killing 'em all like germs" when they are no longer an immediate
threat would be highly immoral behavior, according to the principles
of the Metaphysics of Quality.
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that the fourth clause of the
quote ("the way a doctor destroys germs") is a figure of speech, not
a blueprint for threat-control in a moral society. The MOQ says
quite clearly that human beings are not germs, so it is impossible to
see how any "kill 'em all like germs" theory of threat-control can be
derived from the Metaphysics of Quality.
But, if you or any other philosopher on the list wants to make that
case, I'll be all ears.
Bye for now,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson 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 : Wed Aug 10 2005 - 21:11:37 BST