[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[David Harding]

Hi Platt,
>>> 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.
>>     
> PH
> How so? I'm just repeating what you wrote. 
>   
DH

Yes, your repeating it from a SOM perspective.  Since we are here 
discussing the MOQ, like I said above, I was simply following the 
unwritten rule that any 'possibilities' one talked about were related to 
the MOQ unless I say specifically they are not.  If your having 
difficulties understanding this I'll put it another way. When I talk on 
the MD about the MOQ I'm assuming the first division (the metaphysical 
one) has already been taken as it gets tedious to say every line, 
"within the MOQ". "Or according to the MOQ" etc.etc.  Any decision after 
that however, is wide open. 

I'll go on.  The most important point (and the one that SOM misses) is 
that there is no problem with an open philosophical field within the MOQ 
as it is immoral for any biological rebellion to occur.  Moreover 
philosophies are taken on board, or not, depending on their quality.   
Who's not to like this?
>>  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. 
>>     
> PH:
> How have Rand, I and the Victorians confused biological and 
> intellectual quality? 
>   
DH:
Because that is what SOM does.  This is what I'm trying, and taking a 
long time in each post to make this as clear as possible for you, to 
do.  The only two directions to go against society (according to the 
MOQ) is towards either biological quality or intellectual quality.  One 
of them is absolutely immoral.  The other (when biology is under wraps) 
is good.  SOM confuses them (because it never made this distinction) and 
thinks that *if it isn't society it's not good.*  Continue reading on..

DH (continues):
>> 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)."
>>     
> PH:
> When have I said or inferred that if it (what ever it is) isn't society 
> (whatever that means) it isn't good?
>   
David quotes PH:

"Because then anything goes, depending on what philosophy one chooses to 
follow. Result. social chaos."


>   
>> DH: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.
>>     
>
> PH:You are aware, I'm sure, that some philosophies encourage biological 
> behavior, like radical Islam.  
>   
DH:Doing destructive biological behavior is immoral according to the 
MOQ.  That is what I wrote above.

>   
>>  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."
>>     
> PH:
> 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.
DH:

Yeah, that's what we're doing here.  Talking about ideas, yes?  

Moreover, to a degree the educational system is right.   Morality is 
relative to the culture involved.  You cannot make a statement that is 
not culturally influenced.  The language you use for starters comes from 
your culture.  But ultimately it is not. We each have separate ideas 
rather than combined (social/intellectual)cultural ones and morality is 
not 'just' within a culture, it is universal.  This is what the MOQ 
says. :-)

Cheers,

David.