[MD] Intellect battles the [immigrant] barbarians

[Ant McWatt]

Hello Platt,

Always interesting to hear from you even if your politics are extremely 
strange for an artist fascinated by the MOQ.

Ant McWatt commented to Platt October 31st:

> > Platt,
> >
> > I’m afraid to say that Bush and Blair (the contemporary representatives 
>of
> > the Barbarians of the West) are already past the “gates of Rome” and are
> > now destroying the cradle of civilisation (i.e. Iraq).

Platt replied October 31st:

>So I gather you would rather have Saddam in Iraq preserving "the cradle of
>civilization." by tossing dissidents into wood chippers forcing women into
>veils and virtual servitude without the right to vote or appear along in
>public. Yes, by all means let's return to the Dark Ages.

What about having no Saddam and no US-UK forces and leaving the Iraqi people 
to run their own country?  I don’t think you’d appreciate Iraqi soldiers in 
Myrtle Beach removing the natural resources in town and destroying its 
cultural heritage so don't support this policy the other way round.

Platt noted to Ham October 30th:

Case's accusations against capitalism are right out of the left's
book of talking points. It would be nice if they would talk about hard
work, personal responsibility, individual initiative, delayed
gratification, self-discipline, openness to competition, etc. etc., but
don't hold your breath. It's "the system" that's always to blame. And, of
course in the twisted morality prevalent today, it always pays to be
"oppressed."

> > Ant McWatt commented October 31st:
> >
> > Tell that all to a starving child in Darfur.  What use is “openness to
> > competition” to them?   Capitalism doesn’t work for a substantial
> > proportion (if not the majority) of the world’s population.

Platt replied October 31st:

>It seems to be working well for many Asian countries who were as bad off
>as Darfur not long ago. So why not Darfur?

Well Darfur (as with the rest of Africa) is already part of the global 
capitalist system.  And anyway, I don't think sweatshop labour as has been 
happening in many Asian countries (such as China) where cheap goods that 
undercut wages in the West are produced and therefore destroying jobs here 
(and therefore our general quality of life) is the MOQ way to go.  I think 
we can do better.

Platt continued October 30th:

To these folks even the environment suffers from oppression.

> > Ant McWatt commented:
> >
> > You know the States has about twenty years before the relative lack of
> > global oil supplies will really hit it – hard.  The future doesn’t look 
>too
> > bright in Europe either even though it has a slightly better awareness 
>of
> > renewables and the environment.  I know you’ll probably be dead by 2030 
>but
> > don’t you have grandchildren to be concerned about?

Platt replied October 31st:

>There's plenty of oil to last for the rest of this century and beyond. A
>new field was just recently discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, not to
>mention untapped reserves in Alaska.

Close but no banana.  Even if such new reserves proved adequate (which is 
doubtful) the environment can't take any further carbon emissions.  It's a 
lose-lose situation as far as oil is concerned.  See the articles and links 
at Sam Norton’s Elizaphanian website (keeping in mind this represents a 
conservative viewpoint) for further evidence of this:

www.elizaphanian.blogspot.com

For instance, note Sam’s comments below on a recent Economist article:

“The real meat of the discussion lies - is whether the depletion rate of 
established oil fields will overwhelm this new capacity. In other words, 
whether the running down of production from old oilfields will outweigh the 
production from the new fields. All the signs are that this is exactly what 
is happening.”

”The USGS [United States Geological Survey] figures… have been widely 
discredited. The USGS  figures for total reserves are hypothetical, based 
upon a 50% probability of discovery (in other words, it is equally likely 
that they are wrong) and the total figure stands in stark contrast to that 
arrived at from many other academic studies.”

”If the world fields decline as swiftly then the doomer scenario will unfold 
and we are looking at severe population decline.”

“It's possible that there will be more oil discovered - indeed, that is 
assumed in most Peak Oil analysis, as by Colin Campbell, for example - but 
again, this is disingenuous, as it ignores the scale of the problem.”

“The rate of production WILL decrease. What figures like this don't examine, 
of course, are the 'alternative' sources. Yet an honest analysis would 
account for those separately, in terms of net energy (EROEI). Otherwise we 
could simply include the worlds coal reserves in the equation - because they 
can be converted to liquid fuels too. (This analysis has been done, of 
course - a wholesale plan to replace oil with coal etc pushes the peak back 
by two decades.  [However] it'll make global warming much worse as well, of 
course).”

(www.elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2006/04/economist-article-on-peak-oil.html)

There's also some excellent links about global warming on Sam's website as 
well.

>In the meantime, capitalist entrepreneurs (perhaps one of my grandchildren) 
>will come up with viable fuel alternatives.

Maybe they won't and the hard time I foresee in the West will arise.  Either 
way, while we have the oil at hand, research into alternative energy sources 
needs to be stepped up.

Platt continued October 30th:

The left is a religion, and like all religion impervious to rational 
argument.

Ant McWatt commented:

> > I thought the Left in the States was the natural home of academics and
> > therefore rational thought?   Doesn’t Pirsig doesn’t call universities 
>the
> > Church of Reason?  Moreover, isn't it the conservatives who have been
> > recently allying themselves with the Fundamentalist Christians (the 
>natural
> > home of the non-rational and the crank)?

Platt replied October 31st:

>If academics are the home of rational thought, how come they haven't
>understood and celebrated the MOQ for the philosophical breakthrough that
>it is?

The MOQ explains this.  Any new system of thought will always have 
resistance from the status quo.  You've just got to look at what happened 
with other philosophers such as Berkeley and David Hume whose work wasn't 
initially celebrated to realise that this Dynamic-static tension often 
happens.

And anyway, you already have Ronald Di Santo, Thomas Steele, David Granger, 
Andrew Sneddon, Dean Summers, Orlando Borges, and Hugo Masse (to name a few) 
who are all academics who have picked-up on the MOQ and celebrated it "for 
the philosophical breakthrough that it is."  And the number of academics who 
have picked-up on ZMM (which appeared 17 years before LILA) runs in the 
hundreds (check out the English Departments in the United States alone to 
see this).

As I stated above, the natural home of the non-rational, the gullible and 
the crank is the conservative right.  (You obviously haven’t been listening 
to those Bill Hicks CDs I sent you.)

Platt stated October 31st:

>As for "cranky," academics are hardly noted for their sense of humor…

That's just rubbish as some of the funniest people I have ever met have been 
academics.  You obviously haven't attended university to realise any 
different.

Platt concluded October 30th:

Rand elevates the individual. So does the MOQ by making intellect and art
the highest moral levels. Societies don't think or paint landscapes. Only
individuals do.

Ant McWatt commented:

> > This paragraph is circular in its logic unless intellect and the 
>individual
> > are different entities.  If you replace the term “intellect” with
> > “individual” in your paragraph, it becomes clearer why this is the case 
>i.e.
> >
> > “Rand elevates the individual. So does the MOQ by making the individual 
>and
> > art the highest moral levels. Societies don't think or paint landscapes.
> > Only individuals do.”

Platt replied October 31st:

>I fail to see the circularity.

You are already begging the question (in your conclusion of October 30th) by 
assuming the individual can be just equated with the intellectual level.

Platt continued October 31st:

>Rather I see a fitting analogy.

I see you twisting the MOQ yet again to distort it into your SOM political 
box.

> > Individuals also say “excuse me” for sneezing in public (social value
> > level), eat food (biological value level) and need rocket ships to 
>overcome
> > the Earth's gravity (inorganic level).  As I have noted on a number of
> > occasions on this Discussion group the human individual in the MOQ is a
> > combination of the four static levels, not just an equivalent of the
> > intellectual level.  But hey, I’m only a doctorate in the subject so I
> > could be wrong!

Platt concluded October 31st:

>Yes, doctorates can be wrong like me and everybody else. Glad you agree.
>Regarding the levels,  I suppose you never heard of one level dominating
>the others, as in the intellectual dominating the social? How do you
>suppose that happens if all levels that comprise an individual are always 
>equal?

Anyone with a basic grasp of the MOQ knows the intellectual level is the 
morally highest static level in the MOQ.  What _you_ have to show is why the 
social, biological and inorganic static patterns are not also parts of the 
individual.  They may be morally lower but as the MOQ also indicates if they 
are not recognised and looked after properly (such as eating a good diet and 
exercising to ensure biological high quality) then the intellectual level 
will be undermined or even destroyed.

Actually, instead of your low quality suggestion to change the MOQ, I think 
we should consider naming the intellectual level, the “Liberal-rational 
mind” and the social level, the “Conservative-non-rational mind”.   That’s 
far more satisfactory isn’t it?

Happy voting,

Anthony


P.S. Loved Bush’s mention of philosophers in Dallas yesterday, btw.  
Hilarious.


.

_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip  
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001