[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[David Harding]

Hi Platt,

>> David wrote: I [paraphrased] said that if you wanted you could name the
>> intellectual level the principled-person level but IMHO new names just
>> confuse the matter.  I said that if someone wanted to be a good
>> individual, that is have goodness on all the levels, then they would
>> need perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, prudence and diligence.  
>> According to Lilas Child, Pirsig defines the individual as..
>>
>> "The MOQ says it is a collection of static patterns capable of 
>> apprehending Dynamic Quality".
>>
>> I see no reason to change this definition as IMHO it's good.
>>     
>
> Platt replied: I see no reason either.
>
>   
>>  Why change
>> it, when mine and Pirsigs philosophy incorporates the very same
>> characteristics, every one of them, of your individual right into the
>> current levels of the MOQ? If you can think of any more good
>> characteristics you'd like incorporated then please tell me and I'll try
>> and show you how they fit into the MOQ as Pirsig describes it.
>>     
>
> That's the problem. Pirsig doesn't specifically incorporate the 
> characteristics of perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, self-
> reliance, etc. into the MOQ.
No, he doesn't mention them specifically but they *are* incorporated 
into the MOQ.  You, Platt Holden, think they're good characteristics 
yeah?  I've read you think they're on the social and intellectual levels 
yeah? If someone has those characteristics then in the MOQ that is a 
good thing. What's the problem?
>  I understood you to say these 
> characteristics are intellectual level patterns, e.g., "Thus to put it 
> very plainly the level of the principled person is the intellectual 
> level."  
>
>   
Reading comprehension 101 for Platt Holden.  I never said those 
characteristics are principles.  I said that to be a good MOQ individual 
one would need those characteristics :-)
>>> I'm  concerned, however,  that citing philosophy as the basis for
>>> making decisions leaves a  rather wide open field, depending on
>>> what philosophy one happens to  choose, or have chosen for him.
>>> Would Ayn Rand's philosophy qualify?
>>>       
>
>   
>> What's wrong with an open field? 
>>     
>
> Because then anything goes, depending on what philosophy one chooses to 
> follow. Result. social chaos. 
>
>   
Are we talking on this discussion board about people who don't use the 
MOQ or people who do adhere to the MOQ?  I was always under the general 
assumption that when people came on this board they would assume that 
the 'possibilities' we were talking about were in relation to the MOQ.  
Because if you are, you still seem to be talking from a SOM perspective! 
I don't know how to make this any clearer for you.  Let me re paste what 
I wrote originally..

"Both the SOM intellectuals like Ayn Rand and the Victorians confuse 
biological and intellectual quality like you have. 

Within SOM the only morals (because it neglects morals thoroughly) are 
either current social mores(with small remnants of Victorian charm) or 
what could only be considered social chaos.   SOM confuses the two 
directions of the MOQ moral hierarchy.  It thinks that if it isn't 
society then it's not good because this is what the Victorians echo to 
us(who confused biological and intellectual quality)."

Naturally, if people adhere to a Metaphysics of Quality then social 
chaos is not the result because the only thing which can damage society 
is by following biological drives when society is more important.  I 
agree, if people have ranging philosophies and act in different ways 
then on the social level this may appear like chaos, but on the 
intellectual level it is not because in the MOQ each of these 
philosophies can be ranked according to their quality.

>> According to the natural order of things, the best philosophies outlast
>> the bad ones.  Each person has their own philosophy.  The ones that are
>> good, last.  The ones that aren't, don't.  So of course, Ayn Rand's
>> philosophy qualifies.  Every philosophy qualifies.  It's a metaphysics.
>> It incorporates everything.  Because it is a Metaphysics of Quality the
>> aspects of Ayn Rands philosophy that are good will stand the tests of
>> time. The aspects that aren't, will not. Same with the MOQ and anything
>> else.
>>     
>
> In the meantime, what criteria does one use to choose a "good" 
> philosophy? 
Okay Socrates, so you don't know what's good huh?

> As some have argued here, a philosophy like radical Islam  
> is considered by its practitioners. 
>   
I've never heard of it, is it any good?

Cheers,

David.