[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[ian glendinning]

Dan, Case,

I don't know enough about the specific case to know if the guy did
make any specific mistake or ill-judged decision, but I do want to say
there are alternative answers besides

(a) It was predetermined he would die.
(b) He died as a result of a mistake he made.

Roughly speaking the alternative is "shit happens".

Ian

On 12/7/06, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>