[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[David Harding]

Hi PH.
> 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? 
>>     
> PH
> No doubt they are in the MOQ somewhere. The question is, "Where?" 
>   
DH
All of them seem to have social and intellectual aspects apart from 
courage.  I cannot think of an intellectual aspect to courage.  But this 
is a moot point for now.  A more important discussion IMHO is taking 
place below.

> 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.
>>>       
> DH
>> 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. 
>>     
> PH
> 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. 
>   
Your still looking at it from a SOM perspective.  I did write some new 
fresh comments on what I think is your SOM perspective in my last post.  
I'll repost the repost along with its comments below, in case you missed 
them thinking all of it was repost when it wasn't.

DH wrote last time and quoted himself from the post before:

""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."

Cheers,

David.