Re: MD Objectivism and the MOQ III

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat Jun 12 2004 - 01:48:29 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "MD Objectivism and the MOQ IV"

    Hi Mark M,

    > So, he (Platt) chooses to ignore that completely and suggest,
    > quite correctly, that one does not have to be a member of academia to be an
    > intellectual.

    I'm glad we agree on that. :-)

    > 2. "Phaedrus now thought that part of the professors paralysis was a
    > commitment to the twentieth-century intellectual doctrines, in which his
    > university has had a prominent role." Mark: The proffessors' in question is
    > not a group of professors, but a particular individual. He is an
    > Aristotelian, as is Ayn Rand.

    You missed the part about "the university has had a prominent role,"
    clearly placing blame for the paralysis on an academic group who all sang
    from the same hymnal and preached the same gospel of SOM.

    Mark 12-6-04: You're floundering. I pointed out at the beginning that
    intellectual dialogue with you is difficult, and so it is. There are many people who
    share this appraisal from the evidence available in this forum.
    You provided the forum with two examples of Intellectual Quality. I have
    researched Rush Limbaugh and cannot find any material which displays much in the
    way of serious Intellectual endeavour. If Rush Limbaugh is Platt Holden's
    notion of high Quality intellectual endeavour (Higher Quality than Noam Chomsky as
    you have openly expressed to be the case) then i fear your standards are in
    dire need of reappraisal.
    Ayn Rand has the advantage of at least having produced intellectual material
    we may examine. It becomes immediately clear that Ayn Rand's ideas are SOM,
    and her 'values from facts' argumentation displays clear incompatibility with
    the MOQ.

    > 3. Platt Holden says, "Dismissing the thought of an individual because
    > he
    > isn't an "academic" is elitism of the worse sort." Platt Holden has not
    > considered economic 'elitism' which denies democratic rights to individuals
    > in favour of business interest.

    How so? You've never explained. To begin, please define "democratic
    rights" and "business interest" which, after all, is comprised of
    individuals.

    Mark 12-6-04: We return to experience difficulty in promoting intellectual
    dialogue with you.
    As long as you deny yourself familiarity with evidence presented in texts
    which, have been recommended to you, on grounds that you already know it before
    having become familiar with it, then your profound state of ignorance, evinced
    in such inappropriate questions as, "How so?" and "You've never explained"
    will provide glaring testimony to childlike disinterest.

    > Platt Holden has strongly asserted that he
    > will not research for himself evidence which has been brought to his
    > attention by numerous members of this very forum. And then Platt Holden has
    > the brass neck to begin carping on about elitism.

    Elitism has nothing to do with what one chooses to research. Elitism is
    believing your credentials make you superior.

    Mark 12-6-04: Elitists believe themselves to be superior. There is verifiable
    evidence which indicates that some elitists deny democracy to those they feel
    to be inferior. I am aware of this evidence. You are not.
    Denying yourself the opportunity to see for yourself helps the aforesaid
    elitists because that is the way they get away with what they do. Well done Platt!

    > 4. To return to that 99% which Platt Holden avoids: It is a matter for
    > clear intellectual enquiry for anyone to compare Ayn Rand's Objectivism
    > with the MOQ. All this is totally ignored in this response. It is ignored
    > because Platt Holden cannot challenge it.

    No. It is ignored because this is a forum about the MOQ. I do choose to
    engage in "philosophology" you seem to enjoy so much. If you can't buy
    that, so be it. But, if you want to take about art and beauty and their
    relationship to the MOQ . . . :-)

    Best,
    Platt

    Mark 12-6-04: This forum values Intellectual Quality. If you do not believe
    this to be so then ask Horse? If Horse tells us that the MOQ.org does not value
    Intellectual Quality, i shall leave the forum with immediate effect.
    If the MOQ.org does value Intellectual Quality, (as i believe it does), then
    we should examine those aspects of discussion Platt Holden chooses to ignore,
    and ask if these aspects are related to Intellectual Quality? Because if it
    happens to be the case that Platt Holden is choosing to ignore Intellectual
    Quality, which is valued by the MOQ.org itself, then Platt Holden's values are not
    those of the MOQ.org, even while he is ignoring them!
    This brings us to 'Objectivism and the MOQ parts I - III.'
    Look! 'MOQ' is even in the title of the thread! Some indication, surely, that
    Intellectual Quality may be found lurking in there somewhere?
    But Platt Holden knows better. He has declared that this forum is about the
    MOQ, and therefore chooses to ignore its content.
    I have said it before but it may bare repeating, intellectual dialogue with
    you is difficult. And that is the way you and the elitists who deny democracy
    like it. Well done Platt!

    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 : Sat Jun 12 2004 - 01:50:23 BST