From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 16:16:26 BST
Erin, Arlo:
Permit to correct some erroneous statements of my moral position.
> [Arlo]
> Yeah, you see... Platt isn't just expressing love of Judeo-Christian
> morals in gratitude that they are out there for other people to have. He is
> making the argument that everyone in this nation should be subjugated to
> that code. Then, he says that he only wishes certain aspects of the moral
> code to be written into law, namely those parts that are about controlling
> the lives of others.
I do not argue that everyone in the U.S. should be subjugated to the Judeo-
Christian moral code. If anything, I am against subjugation of any kind,
subjugation defined as "to gain or conquer by force of arms." As I've
repeated often, and as Arlo has agreed, matters of law that "control of
the lives of others" should be determined by duly elected representatives
in a democratic republic. That is a far car from "subjugation." Arlo's
hyperbole grossly misrepresents my views.
> For example. Gay marriage. Platt feels it should be illegal because it
> violates the Judeo-Christian moral code. But, don't even think about making
> a law stating business was illegal on Sunday/Saturday.
I have never said gay marriage should be illegal because it violates the
Judeo-Christina moral code, nor do I care in the slightest whether
business operates on Sunday or not.
> If all he was doing was opining about the beauty of a moral code he did not
> believe it, well, he'd be a hypocrit, but I wouldn't care. When he posts is
> support of legislation based on this hypocrisy that seeks to place control
> on MY life, well, yes, I do take the time to call a spade a spade.
Supporting legislation is always about controlling lives to one degree or
another. Why Arlo should get all upset about laws I support but not about
laws he supports just goes to show that Arlo is not immune to hypocrisy
which he seems to believe is a horrendous sin.
> As for what is Platt like in his daily life, hell, I'd bet he's a good guy.
> He's loving, considerate, and obviously has great insight into aesthetics.
> If I knew him, I wouldn't mind having a beer with him from time to time. If
> you think I argue with Platt out of dislike of Platt, you are quite wrong.
> People I dislike I ignore. We may battle vehemently and vocally on this
> list, but I consider Platt a Good man.
As I do Arlo. I like him especially because he is willing to tackle issues
of current importance in our daily lives whereas so many here are content
to stay above the fray arguing about metaphysical abstractions that have
little bearing on what's going on in the real world. Unless we apply the
principles of the MOQ or whatever moral philosophy we believe in to the
real world, so wonderfully described in Pirsig's books as he travels
across the country and down the Hudson River with real people having real
lives, we're just, as someone put it, "mental masturbation," not that
there's anything wrong with that. :-)
> Does Platt have disdain for the Amish. No, of course not, because they
> aren't on social welfare. That's really where the crux of the dilemma is. I
> think Platt, and many, many so-called christians are quite content to
> ignore the poor. Its when they have to help, that they get all angry. And
> that's another time I laugh at the hypocrisy. It's easy to "call yourself a
> christian" (or a "this" or a "that"), but its another thing to be called to
> action.
You see, Arlo's call to action is to "help" by doling out alms to the
poor, thereby enabling their continued dependency. My way of helping is
to show them the way out of poverty by so conducting their lives that they
become self-sufficient individuals beholding to no one except as they
freely may choose.
> As for Platt's disdain of the poor, I think this stems from the economic
> valuation that wealthy people are "of value" and poor people are "of no
> value". That is, poverty is either a choice (you are too lazy to work), or
> the result of an inherent flaw (you are too stupid to have a job). Many
> christians feel this way too. Couple this with his abhorence at having to
> contribute food, shelter or healthcare to these people, and the disdain
> kicks in full gear.
My only disdain is for individuals who, when given the opportunity to do
the right thing, refuse to do so -- no matter who they are.
> We are not responsible to each other because Jesus said so. Nor are we
> because White Buffalo Calf Woman said so. But when we realize that all
> spiritual leaders, all religious traditions, have had this fundamental
> message it is correct to ask (I believe) if it is because some aspect of
> the transcendent (Qualtiy, or whatever you call it) expresses this to us.
> If we strip away the veneer of nationalistic rhetoric, or cultural specific
> metaphors, I believe (in MOQ terms) that this is a fundamental aspect of
> social Quality, or rather, that it was this Dynamic Quality that
> historically led to the formation of the social layer. "Duty to others" is
> the Quality glue that holds together the social layer.
So Arlo believes the source of society's moral code is the "transcendent."
How interesting. Maybe we're not so far apart after all. :-)
Platt
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 : Tue Sep 27 2005 - 16:30:31 BST