[MD] Bill's Intellectual Level

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt, Ant,
Richard Rigel thought about it. ...
He said, "Let me try another word: 'Honor.' The person we are talking about
dishonored his wife and he dishonored his children and he dishonored
everyone who put trust in him, as well as himself.  People forgave him for his weakness, but they lost respect for him and that was what finished him for any position of responsibility.

Platt then commented:

>You left out Pirsig's comment about Bill's behavior. "That's really
>bad," the author said, and looked down at the table."
>
>Seems the author and I are on the same page.

Ant McWatt comments:

Yes, you and the author are on the same page...  however, _only_ the social aspect of the author portrayed by the Victorian orientated Rigel.

Steve:
I can't believe both of you (Ant and Platt) could be so far off the mark about the MOQ. The guy's name was Jim not Bill!

But seriously, Platt, Phaedrus' "that's really bad" refers to Jim being refused any position of authority, not that he got mixed up with Lila. If if he had thought that was bad he wouldn't have gotten mixed up with her himself. But I think you know this.

Actually, I like to think of Platt as smiling when he makes a response like that--a deliberate obvious misinterpretation of the text that keeps him from having to admit that he knows he was wrong.

Obviously Rigel is all about honor whereas Phaedrus couldn't give a darn. Try again to see what "that's really bad" refers to and please take note that the guy's name is Jim, thank you very much:

"It's not a public matter," Rigel said, "And I won't mention his name,
Bill, or you'd recognize it."  [he does end up mentioning the name...]
Then he looked at the author seriously. "You've never seen such a sad,
forsaken man.  He lost his wife, his children, most of his friends-his
reputation was gone.  He had to quit his job at the bank where he had a
promising future-in fact was scheduled for a vice-presidency.  Eventually
he had to move to get re-established.  But knowing the bank's president I'm
sure he put it on Jim's record, and that was the end of his career, I'm
afraid.  No board will ever promote him to any position of real
responsibility."
"That's really bad," the author said, and looked down at the table.

Ant McWatt further comments:

To transpose it to the future by a few years, should a Dynamic, high intellectual quality US president such as Bill Clinton be undermined by 
a social level "scandal" such as the Lewinsky affair (engineered by a 
socially retarded bunch of short sighted money grabbing hypocrites).  I say the MOQ implies absolutely not and anyone who says otherwise is just another Rigel parody trying to _immorally_ shoehorn their own pet social values above the MOQ's intellectual level.

Steve:
Ant, that analysis is certainly valid based on the MOQ, but keep in mind that one could also make an argument supporting impeachment based on the MOQ as well.

The MOQ says "Both are moral arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for support. Just as two sides can go before the U.S. Supreme Court and both claim
constitutionality, so two sides can use the MOQ, but that does not mean that
either the Constitution or the MOQ is a meaningless set of ideas. Our whole
judicial system rests on the presumption that more than one set of
conclusions about individual cases can be drawn within a given set of moral
rules. The MOQ makes the same presumption."

Thanks,
Steve





 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.