MD Objectivism and the MOQ part II.

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 11 2004 - 02:08:38 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Polls and morality"

    If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
    1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”
    (Metaphysics: Objective Reality. Objective reality, to be commanded, must be
    understood without Subjectivity. Wishing is Subjective. This is SOM which
    recognises subjectivity as something which is irrelevant or must be nullified. In
    MOQ terms, Social and Intellectual values are reducible to Objective states.
    This is in clear contradiction of the MOQ.)

    2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
    (Epistemology: Reason. This is a simplified assertion of the logical
    necessity of A = A.)

    3. “Man is an end in himself.”
    (Ethics: Self-interest. The self in the MOQ relies on more than one level of
    evolutionary related patterns of value. Therefore, what is good for
    Intellectual, and Social patterns must by necessity be good for all Intellectual and
    Social patterns. Any narrow notion of a Cartesian Self, as is the case with
    Objectivism, is incompatible with the MOQ.)

    4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
    (High Quality Liberty in the MOQ is provided by the social approval and
    enforcement of Intellectual ideas which maximise freedom. Any Social patterning
    which deters Intellectual ideas, such as the idea of democracy for example, is
    not Liberty in the MOQ sense.)

    If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your
    convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your
    life. But to hold them with total consistency — to understand, to define, to
    prove and to apply them — requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy
    cannot be discussed while standing on one foot — nor while standing on two
    feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical
    position today, particularly in the field of politics.
    My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
    1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of
    man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
    (In the MOQ, 'man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears' are patterns of value
    which may be assigned their appropriate evolutionary level, and are just as
    real as atoms. Objectivism does not recognise this as is clearly stated by its
    author.)

    2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided
    by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source
    of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
    (The MOQ totally rejects this assertion; Quality is the primary empirical
    reality.)

    3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of
    others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor
    sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest
    and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
    (The MOQ expands beyond the narrow limitations of Ayn Rand's Objectivism
    making the above conclusions of Objectivism redundant.)

    4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a
    system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as
    masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual
    benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by
    resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force
    against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights;
    it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate
    its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full
    capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation
    of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the
    separation of state and church.
    (On it's own terms this ideal is good, as are all ideals by definition. It is
    as good as the ideal of Karl Marx or Christianity for example; the very
    postulation of an ideal state negates deviation towards the non-ideal. Neither
    Marxism nor, 'a complete separation of state and economics' is possible, only an
    approximation. It must be understood that ideals are intellectual postulations,
    and as such bare no relation to other levels of values - this is to say,
    ironically, that ideals are wishful thinking in the same sense that one may
    postulate that 'everyone should love and respect each other in all situations and at
    all times.)

    All the best,
    Mark

    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 : Fri Jun 11 2004 - 03:24:17 BST