[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

> > [Case]
> > It seems there is something very critical at the heart of our 
> > disagreements but I just can't figure out what it is.
> 
> [Platt]
> I think it has to do with freedom vs. order, a bone of contention since
> the beginning of time. But, I could be wrong.
> 
> [Case]
> I think I know what you mean by this but please expand. How are freedom
> and order in conflict?

I mean the precarious balance between individual liberty vs. social 
codes. Or as I prefer to view it, the tension between the intellectual 
and social levels with each vying for dominance. It's Galileo vs. the 
Roman Catholic Church or Thoreau vs. Obedience. I do not deny the need 
for social restrictions on individual conduct, but firmly believe the 
the default position should be individual freedom. Is this anywhere 
close to what you mean by freedom and order being in conflict?   

> [Platt]
> I judge moral superiority on the basis of the MOQ levels, plus DQ. That
> I could be wrong I admit. I don't consider myself the final word on the
> MOQ.
> 
> [Case]
> How do you think the levels clarify moral order? Is this the idea that
> it is better for an idea to kill a society than for a society to kill an
> idea? So that anything at a higher level is morally superior to anything
> at a lower level?

Yes. That's the way I see it. It's a general guide, of course. Pirsig 
made it clear that the MOQ was not intended to settle specific ethical 
questions. (Sorry, I can't find his actual quote.) But I'm sure you 
remember his discussion in Lila about the doctor morally choosing his 
patient over the germ even though both want to live. What has stuck in 
my mind was his assertion in Lila that free speech, freedom of 
religion, trial by jury, etc. , in other words, individual rights, were 
all intellect vs. society issues. That's one reason why I always 
associate the individual with the intellectual level, the other reason 
being that societies don't think, only individuals do. Do this make 
sense to you?

> [Platt]
> In war those who are dedicated to overthrowing your Constitution that
> protects and preserves civil rights forfeit civil rights. 
> 
> [Case]
> Persons tried and convicted of an offense forfeit their civil rights.
> Depriving anyone of due process is a greater threat to the Constitution
> than the toppling of buildings or the slaughter of innocents.

Here we simply disagree. You see terrorists as criminals. I see them as 
combatants in a war. In law there's a difference.
 
> [Platt]
> I listen to creditable opponents of conventional wisdom. Science has a
> long record of being wrong. I also suspect the motives of
> environmentalists because their solutions are always higher taxes and
> more government control.
> 
> [Case]
> Science is often wrong because it is the business of science to prove
> itself wrong. In the case of man's impact on climate the argument is
> over politics not science. There is scientific consensus that there is a
> problem. What to you think the cost of doing nothing will be?

I meant to say scientific consensus if often wrong. Examples: the 
prevailing view at one time that light traveled through ether and that 
Piltdown Man was the missing link. There's a consensus now that the 
brain creates consciousness although scientists like David Darling,  
Robert Sheldrake and others question the consensus. Similarly, there 
are qualified scientists who question man's impact as the cause of 
global warming, pointing out the natural fluctuations in climate over 
the years from warm to cold to back again. (I recall not many years ago 
the consensus among climatologists was the earth was getting colder.) 
As for the cost of doing nothing, it's the cost of doing something that 
worries me, especially the cost of freedom.

> [Platt]
> Hope this adds to your understanding. I don't expect a conclusion --
> except I'm right and you're wrong. So now go play in the traffic. :-) 
> 
> [Case]
> I am willing to amend my conclusion to "Maybe I am right and maybe you
> are wrong." But it could be the other way around. Now go sit on a hot
> stove.

Yes. "Maybe" is always a good operative word. Now go and have a great 
Thanksgiving dinner.

Platt

P.S. Speaking of Thanksgiving, I'll be thanking Horse today for making 
conversations like this one between Case and me possible.