[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[David Harding]

Hi Platt,
>> DH: 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.
>>     
>
> PH: I don't understand what you mean by "an open philosophical field within 
> the MOQ" Within the MOQ there is only one philosophy -the MOQ.
>   
DH: I disagree. Philosophy is about making divisions of the infinitely 
dividable. Metaphysics is the first division, there can be many more 
after that. There are aspects of Rands philosophy which fit beautifully 
IMHO into the MOQ.
>   
>> DH:Moreover
>> philosophies are taken on board, or not, depending on their quality.  
>> Who's not to like this?
>>     
>
> PH:Everybody like's quality. But there are many different ideas about what 
> a quality philosophy is. Here, for example, Ayn Rand's philosophy is 
> considered by many to be low quality. 
>
>   
>> DH: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.*
>>     
>
> PH:If you knew Rand's philosophy you would know she doesn't believe in "if 
> it isn't society it's not good." In fact, quite the opposite. I also do 
> not look to society for approval, especially that part of society where 
> liberals hang out. :-) 
>   
DH: I do know Rand's philosophy and she claims the opposite to the 
Victorians that "if it isn't society it is good" (because she uses the 
crude distinction; society vs no-society of SOM). She neglects to 
mention the dangers of letting biology out of the bag, and how we can 
maintain society once it is. Or at least in a way as beautiful and 
metaphysically sound as Pirsig does.
>   
>> 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."
>>     
>
> PH:How do you interpret that to mean "if it isn't society it isn't good?" 
>   
DH:Your making the SOM 'Victorian' point that says if we follow 
intellect, society will crumble. This is baloney. This is what Richard 
Rigel said. This is what the Victorians said. As you point out, Ayn Rand 
says the opposite (that if it isn't society it's good). But neither of 
them work. (Solely society or solely intellect).

The MOQ uniquely says that society will only crumble if biology is 
followed when society is more important. Once society does have biology 
under lock and key, then one's free to roam the high country of the mind...
>   
>   
>>>> 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:Who do you know "adheres to the MOQ?" To repeat: if there are many
> philosophies in a society, all  with different standards of morality, and all are
> allowed to flourish under an overall philosophy of "anything goes," then 
> there is likely to be social chaos. 
>   
DH:I adhere to the MOQ. That is, until something better comes along. Any 
standard of morality that allows biological behavior is absolutely 
immoral according to the MOQ.
>     
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
>
> It's immoral by many philosophical standards, not just the MOQ. 
>   
DH:The MOQ is a far more powerful, beautiful philosophy than 'many 
philosophical standards'.
>  
>   
>>>>  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?  
>>     
>
> PH:Talking and behaving are quite different activities.
>   
DH:I agree.
>   
>> DH:Moreover, to a degree the educational system is right.   Morality is
>> relative to the culture involved.
>>     
>
> PH:Not according to the MOQ which, by your unwritten rule, we must be 
> talking about unless otherwise indicated.
>   
DH: Morality *is* relative to the culture involved according to the MOQ, 
if you continue reading below rather than taking out one sentence and 
destroying the harmony of the paragraph, you'd see this too.
>   
>> DH(continues):You cannot make a statement that is
>> not culturally influenced.  The language you use for starters comes from
>> your culture.
>>     
>
> PH:Language is not morality.
>   
DH:Everything is morality.
>   
>> DH(continues):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. :-)
>>     
>
> PH: Exactly. That's what I said. That's why those who preach and teach   
> relative morality are wrong. That's why we have social chaos in the 
> world today.
>   
DH:I agree.

But in my view as I just said, ultimately morality is not relative to 
each culture(because we each have our own ideas). But at the same time 
to a lesser extent, it is too(our ideas are culturally influenced).
> PH: It takes some work interpreting what each of us is saying to the other, 
> but happily we seem to agree on some things.  
>   
DH: Yes, I think we agree on a lot too. Just I think you make the 
mistake of using SOM at times when the MOQ is much better.

Cheers,

David.