[MD] Bill's Intellectual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve,

> 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.

I know nothing of the sort. Another example of your interpretation of the MOQ
being off base. As Pirsig said, "The  rest of us have to settle for being
something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and 
writing metaphysics is a part of life."  In other words, succumbing to 
biological urges -- bad by social and intellectual standards -- is part 
of life, and Phaedrus never claimed to be a saint.  Jim, Bill or 
whoever is could no longer be trusted, like when Clinton lied by 
saying, "I never had sex with that woman." His dishonesty was bad, and 
Phaedrus was quick to say so.   
 
> 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."

An appropriate quote given Ant's assertion. The same general idea can 
be applied to how the MOQ is interpreted. There is no one right way to 
construe the great author's words. Keep in mind that Dan's "Lila's 
Child" consisted of many of clarifications by Pirsig of  what he meant.

Regards,
Platt