[MD] moq_discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 23

[amir izadi]

Hi Platt,

 
> Hi Amirman,
> 
> > Hi Platt
> > 
> > I agree with your points about moral values coming
> > into play with regard to behaviour.
> > 
> > But there's two problems that I can see you don't
> > address. One is how do you evaluate the moral
> value of
> > children who have potential, but not yet the
> > transforming behaviour of say nobel prize winning
> > scientist or a Nelso Mandela? The MOQ is not
> strictly
> > ulitarian though some may believe it to be so.
> 
> Babies experience pure DQ. So morally they are at
> the top. That's why 
> abortion is such a travesty. 

Babies also need the static quality in which to thrive
and realize their dynamic quality. There's no such
thing as one superceding the other from the MOQ
perspective. They may be at a different level, but
they're both necessary for the other to exist.
Pirsig explains this when he says something to the
effect that without static quality, dynamic quality
would simply fizzle into chaos and would never bear
any real fruit.

> 
> > Secondly, before you label someone "terrorist" you
> > have to define first what it is. Was the atomic
> bomb
> > drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a terrorist act by
> > killing innocent civilians and creating terror in
> the
> > society? Or how about Kissinger's carpet bombing
> of
> > Cambodia? Or the USs sponsoring coups in Iran and
> > Chile in the '50s to depose a democratically
> elected
> > leaders?
> 
> Keep in mind that Hitler was democratically elected.
> As for the 
> definition of a terrorist the following is as good
> as any:

I'm not defending democracy here. I realize its
limitations. I was just pointing out that the West
calling Middle Eastern bombers "terrorists" is the pot
calling the kettle black and a case of hypocrisy at
its worst based on their past (and present) behaviour.
I'll get to your support of hypocrisy later, but for
now I'm still waiting to hear if you define the
dropping of the A-bombs on Japan as a terrorist act. 

> "One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and
> intimidation to 
> achieve political objectives, while disguised as a
> civilian non-
> combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on
> operations exempts 
> the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva
> Conventions, and 
> consequently if captured they are liable for
> prosecution as common 
> criminals." From:
> http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm 

By this definition government spies would be
considered terrorists. But its source is the airlines.
Find me a definition that has a place in law as it
applies to political institutions.

>the U.S. being the shining 
>example of the result in producing a higher standard
>of living than any 
>other economic system in the world, bar none. 

If you look at the per capita income you may be
correct about the US, but as someone said, "man does
not live by bread alone". That rate is distorted by so
much wealth being concentrated in so few hands. The US
ranks amongst the worst in quality of health amongst
the G8 and pictures from Katrina should be a lesson
that disparity of wealth is a better measure of the
"quality" of a society than the per capita income may
lead you to believe.

 
>Personally I don't find hypocrisy to be immoral. It's
>a disguised form 
>of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem whereby the
>person making an 
>assertion is judged rather than the validity of her
>assertion. The 
>alcoholic who advises her children not to drink
>excessively is being a 
>hypocrite, but her advice is valid.

>Cheers,
>Platt

You seem to divorce assertions and ideas (the
intellectual realm) from the pragmatic world of
reality (the social and biological). That's where
Pirsig's MOQ doesn't falter. It emphasizes that true
Quality is when  both the static and the dynamic
qualities support eachother. That without one or the
other, neither has any sustaining power. 

In the example you give above, how valuable is the
alcoholics advice not to drink if she facilitates and
promotes in every way possible the value of drinking?
Or if she doesn't give her children an alternative and
in fact threatens to beat them if they don't drink?
Her advice to "not drink" is meaningless (as it should
be) to the children without a supportive environment
to implement that option. I would add that that advice
in that context has absolutely NO value whatsoever
because it promotes a dichotomy between thoughts (the
intellectual realm) and actions (the social and
biological realms) and promotes falsehood.

In the political context, that's even more apparent
when the US says one thing in public and does another
in private. 

Cheers,
amirman


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com