[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Platt Holden]

> DH
> All of them seem to have social and intellectual aspects apart from
> courage.  I cannot think of an intellectual aspect to courage.

An example of courage at the intellectual level would be to challenge 
the reigning intellectual orthodoxy, like the world is not the center 
of the universe. Wasn't that Galileo? Right now it takes a lot of 
courage for a biologist to espouse panpsyschism.

> 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. 

DH   
> Your still looking at it from a SOM perspective.

How so? I'm just repeating what you wrote.

>  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. 

How have Rand, I and the Victorians confused biological and 
intellectual quality?

> 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)."

When have I said or inferred that if it (what ever it is) isn't society 
(whatever that means) it isn't good?

> 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.

You are aware, I'm sure, that some philosophies encourage biological 
behavior, like radical Islam.  

>  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."

You must be talking about an ideal world where everyone has read, 
understands and follows the MOQ. Until then, the world is going to stay 
chaotic such as it is today, especially since the educational system is 
teaching the young that morality is relative to the culture involved  
and diversity is the hip new religion.

Regards,
Platt