From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 17:31:36 BST
[Platt]
>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.
[Arlo]
Fair enough. When you said in the past that "until the MOQ is accepted, the
Judeo-Christian moral code should form the basis for the legislation of
morality in this country", I took that to mean you favored legislating
aspects of that code. If you are now telling me you are not in favor of
legislation based on the Judeo-Christian moral code, I am happy to know I
was wrong.
Praytell, though, if you are now saying that this code should not form the
basis for moral legislation, what do you propose should? I've countered
with secular rationalism, or reason. What do you counter-propose?
[Platt]
>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.
[Arlo]
Well, then, fair enough again. From now on, should the issue arise, I'll
assume there will be no mention of the Judeo-Christian moral code in
defining what constitutes a "normal family" or the "usual family arrangement".
[Arlo previously]
> > 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.
[Platt]
>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.
[Arlo]
Let me restate the case. I expect you to engage me in opposition to laws I
support and you find disagreement with. Just as I do you. There is no
hypocrisy here. Just argumentation based in opposition. I have never said I
was against social-level enforcement (controlling) of behavior. I favor
laws against murder. I favor laws against incest. What I have challenged
here, is not that you support legislation I oppose (that's normal), but
that you had based your support in a moral framework that was deceitful.
You're telling me I was wrong about that, and I'll take you at your word.
In short, Platt, I don't find any hypocrisy in your opposition to laws I
support, or my opposition to laws you support. I am not against
social-level control, and neither are you. It is about the application and
authority underlying specific instances of law being argued that I've
vocalized complaints on. But you've said this was wrong, and seeing that
the Judeo-Christian moral code won't be used then to bolster either
authority or preference to the application and authority of laws either of
us suggests, we should be in good standing.
[Platt]
>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. :-)
[Arlo]
Hehehe. This reminds me of some undergraduate experiences I had had while
taking graduate level philosophy courses in semiotics and metaphor. The
classes were very eclectic to be sure, but there was always one or two
people whom we'd come to refer as the "forehead masturbaters". They would
always be found in the basement of Zeno's (a local pub), reading Nietzsche
or Habermas or someone "hard", drinking cognac, long bangs down over their
eyes, snearing at anyone who wasn't listening to Joy Division or early
Cure, rubbing their foreheads in "pose" of how insightful they were. They'd
look down on the rest of the class with condescension because we lacked
sensitivity, evidenced by the fact that we were not tortured souls adrift
in a sea of meaninglessness. Since semiotics and metaphor were not, at the
time, valid art-house musings, they were seen by this small crowd as
boring, banal, even distracting to the real "stuff" going on in
existentialism, nihilism, and the like. The cool read Sarte, the uncool
read Peirce. And they always could be seen masturbating their foreheads,
supposedly a "chewing" like activity to help the difficult philosophy they
were reading digest. But, anyways...
[Platt]
>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.
[Arlo]
And until they become "self-sufficient", what do we do with them? What
about those that work 60-70 hours a week yet still can't afford healthcare?
Or pay their electric? You seem to make the counter-assumption that I have
no problems keeping people on "welfare" all their lives. I have no problem
with (1) working these people in some sort of work-for-welfare programs, or
(2) work training to get people off public support.
My concern is the "in the meantime". Do we allow people to go hungry? Do we
allow them to live on the streets? Do we allow them to die sick? I say "no".
[Platt]
>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.
[Arlo]
Glad to hear. But, I have to ask, what is "the right thing"? Looking out
for yourself? Looking out for others?
[Arlo previously]
> > 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.
[Platt]
>So Arlo believes the source of society's moral code is the "transcendent."
>How interesting. Maybe we're not so far apart after all. :-)
[Arlo]
And maybe we can get to in the "on morality" thread you've started.
Arlo
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 - 18:18:04 BST