[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] The MOQ's First Principle
>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:06:36 -0500
>
>[Dan]
>
>I read of a tragedy out west in Oregon where a man and his family became
>snowbound when they took a wrong turn. After statically waiting over a week
>and with supplies running low, the man apparently decided to Dynamically
>seek help by setting off on foot. A couple days later his family was 
>rescued
>
>and it took searchers a few more days to locate the man's body.
>
>Let's examine this using the first principle as you suggest: freedom. Now,
>it's clear the man was acting in a moral manner...he wanted nothing more
>than to save his family. And it seems pretty clear that he was acting in a
>more Dynamic manner by actively seeking help rather than passively waiting
>for it to arrive.
>
>Using the first principle, where did he go wrong?
>
>[Case]
>Perhaps the problem is he did everything right.

Dan:
But he died! Are you saying that there was at no point along the way where 
he made a mistake? That his death was predetermined from the beginning?

>Case:
>When confronted with a
>chaotic universe there any number of strategies one could adopt.

Dan:
Perhaps so. Still, take the game of chess, for example. There are any number 
of opening moves a person can make. But in order to be competitive against a 
ruthless opponent there are only 2 opening moves that stand a chance. And 
once a strategy is chosen, one is obliged to stick with it...

Looking at the situation of the family trapped in the snow, there were only 
2 opening moves for the man: stay with the car, or go for help. If he was 
going to go for help it was vital that he go early on, not after a week in 
the wilderness had sapped his energy.

>Case:
>Reason is
>one of those strategies. Statistically and historically it is the one that
>proven most successful for humans. It has carried us far but the truth is 
>it
>doesn't always work. If this man had relied on faith and had sat praying
>with his family he would be alive today. Both faith and reason are
>strategies for confronting uncertainty. But neither banishes uncertainty. 
>It
>is ever present.

Dan:
Good sense is always better than poor judgement.

>Dan:
>Many years ago in the area I live, a tornado was approaching a trailer 
>park.
>One of the residents and her husband left their trailer and sought shelter
>in a block building. The tornado blew away the block building and she was
>killed. Her trailer was untouched.

Dan:
I live in a bit of a tornado alley myself. A person couldn't give me a 
trailer nor pay me to live in it. Block buildings are little better unless 
they're structually reinforced. It's a bummer for sure but that's just how 
it is when you're confronted with forces of nature.

>Case:
>Reason is a way of hedging our bets. I believe it to be the best way. If I
>were that man or that woman I would do what the each of them did, even
>today, even knowing how it turned out badly for them. When push comes to
>shove it all comes down to where you put your faith.

Dan:
You wouldn't stock your vehicle with blankets, extra clothes, and supplies? 
I mean, faith is great and all, but a nice hot bowl of soup and a warm fire 
would seem a whole lot better on a cold night trapped in the mountains than 
the biggest pile of faith you could imagine. Anyone, and I mean anyone, 
thinking of traveling in hazardous conditions would be negligent, possibly 
even criminally negligent, not to prepare accordingly, would you agree?

Thank you for your comments,

Dan