[MD] Intellect battles the [immigrant] barbarians

[David M]

Hi Folks

What's the morality here?

To intervene or not?

Is there a star trek type prime directive to let
a nation/society/culture develop organically?

Should we intervene if we can improve development,
security & freedom?

Problem with Iraq is all the troubled interventions in
the past. Theresore past reponsibilities.

DQ/SQ?

We busted the Iraq SQ of repressive dictatorship to
replace it with DQ of the destructive possibly fatal
kind.

Hard call, but looks like we did not do enough to 
bring about new and better SQ.

And of course there was the core motive, i.e. oil,
so did we really care?

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden at davtv.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect battles the [immigrant] barbarians


Hello Ant,

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

"Extremely strange" only to those whose politics is left-wing. I find 
it exceedingly strange that professed MOQers do not think it's moral to 
fight to protect and preserve intellectual values and the dynamism of a 
free market. 
 
[Platt]
> >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.

[Ant] 
> What about having no Saddam and no US-UK forces and leaving the Iraqi
> people to run their own country?

Precisely the Bush-Blair policy, to be accomplished when Iraqis can 
defend themselves from suicide bombers and throat-slitting barbarians.

>  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.

I would indeed appreciate them very much if they had removed a sadistic 
dictator and allowed my town to once again flourish under the 
intellectual values of democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, 
trial by jury, etc. And when the news came down that the dictator who 
had made the Myrtle Beach people suffer unspeakable horrors had been 
sentenced to hang, I too, like Iraqis, would be dancing in the streets.

> 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.

What you call "sweatshop labor" represents a better life for many. 
Also, the last time I looked, our unemployment rate was the lowest in 
years. So much for the argument of "destroying jobs here." If 
unemployment is higher in Europe it's because of mandatory minimum 
wages and restrictions on firing employees, plus hundreds of other 
socialist anti-business regulations.

> 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:

You of all people know that blogs are notorious in presenting one point 
of view. For every scare article about environmental and social 
disaster I can find articles with opposing arguments. So let us not 
engage a fruitless exchange of opinions from self-appointed "experts." 

[clip]


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

[Ant] 
> 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.

Necessity is the mother of invention. I envision being transported by 
nanobots.

> 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).

Would you be willing to add the accolades of those you've named above 
to the MOQ website? Both old salts like me and newbies would find  
encouragement if we read other than criticism of the MOQ from 
representatives from the academe.

> 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.)

Who is Bill Hicks? An academic philosopher? Or a comedian.

> 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.

I attended university for four years. The only laughs came in mocking  
stuff-shirted, serious-minded professors. (I presume in the manner of 
Bill Hicks.)

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

I gave reasons for equating the individual with the intellectual level. 
The collective doesn't write doctoral theses, create philosophical 
novels, or paint landscapes. Societies don't think, individuals do. 

> 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.

I don't have to show that. I admit that. 

> 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.

Agree. But when the intellectual and artistic levels dominate an 
individual, ah, then we have our Einsteins, Shakespeares and Pirsigs. 

> 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?

Well, it fits in nicely with your insane (as Arlo would say) notion 
idea that conservatives are stupid. But, that's a low quality notion on 
its face. I think you can do better.

Best regards,

Platt

P.S. I voted against an increase in sales tax to fund new roads in our 
locality. Doing my environmental duty. :- )


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/