[MD] freedom is for the rich

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Laird Bedore <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>:


> [Laird]
> I certainly wouldn't consider the MoQ to be in vain because it can't 
> create an absolute moral code. Like our other fruits of intellect, it's 
> a useful tool (arguably more useful than SOM) that requires a wielder of 
> the tool to be of use. Rather than suggest it should be used by the few 
> to dictate to the many, I think it's better suited to be used by the 
> many to improve our debates, majority votes, means of government, etc.

I don't claim the MOQ presents "an absolute moral code." But as Pirsig
said, he saw it as "a large football field that gave meaning to the game by telling
you who was on the 20 yard line but did not decide which team would win." Nor do I
claim the MOQ should be used "by the few to dictate to the many." The first
principle of the MOQ is freedom from static "dictates" to allow DQ to flourish. What
I don't see much of here is the game being played within the playing field of
of the MOQ. Discussions of morality are the exception rather than the rule.  
  
[Platt]
> > You may be right. But since he took the time and trouble to point out the
> > weakness of James' pragmatism, I wouldn't associate it with the MOQ as you did
> > in appealing to "the pragmatic MOQ approach." But, I could be wrong. 
> >   
> [Laird]
> Okay. Just try not to let perfection get in the way of Good. Many small 
> improvements have an easier time statically latching than one huge 
> improvement. At least if one fails, less is lost in the process.

Hmmm. Interesting concept. I'm thinking of the American Revolution and the Civil
War that resulted in two huge improvements that were statically latched. Failure
would have resulted in immense loss. I'm also reminded of the incremental spider
in Chap. 24. In any case, a debatable point.

Platt


  





-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/