[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Matt poot]

I have missed out on the discussion, but have you discussed a person who 
makes their decisions on intuition?

gotta run


>From: David Harding <davidharding at optusnet.com.au>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] A Place for the Principled Person
>Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:01:44 +1000
>
>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.
>
>moq_discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/