[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Platt Holden]

Hi David H, 

PH   
> > That's the problem. Pirsig doesn't specifically incorporate the 
> > characteristics of perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, self-
> > reliance, etc. into the MOQ.

DH
> 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? 

No doubt they are in the MOQ somewhere. The question is, "Where?" I 
think they rightfully belong in the intellectual level. Others say the 
social level. What's going on is the continuing debate of what values 
belong at what level. For example, some think anthills belong in the 
social level while others disagree. Interpreting the MOQ is the name of 
the game here.

PH
> 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."

DH
> 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 :-) 

Are you saying now that those characteristics do not belong at the 
intellectual level? If so, where would you put them? Or are they 
everywhere in the MOQ at all levels.

PH
>>> 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?

DH
 >> What's wrong with an open field?

PH
>> 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. 

Your original statement was that a principled person is one "who makes 
his decisions based on philosophy rather than  biological whims and 
impulses, or even from the lure of celebrity and the social level." Why 
would one reading that assume you were limiting your definition of 
philosophy to the MOQ? Then you asked, "What's wrong with an open 
field?" indicating it made little difference what philosophy one chose 
to make his decisions on. 

PH
> > In the meantime, what criteria does one use to choose a "good" 
> > philosophy? 

DH
> Okay Socrates, so you don't know what's good huh?

That's your answer? No criteria you can identify?

PH
> > As some have argued here, a philosophy like radical Islam  
> > is considered by its practitioners. 

DH   
> I've never heard of it, is it any good?

Not unless you consider killing infidels like you and me "good."

Regards,
Platt