[MD] Sin Part 1

[Laird Bedore]

Hi Platt,

(Seriously) Thanks for writing this. It has really helped me understand 
the love/hate relationship I have with your comments at times... You're 
a clear Darwinian, "survival of the fittest" at heart. I used to be (at 
least in ideas and words), but in time (and trauma) I found I didn't 
practice what I preached. So I've been trying to match my preaching with 
my practice and have found my practiced opinions to be quite different, 
though a part of me still has an attachment to the Darwinist approach. 
It certainly can be a quick way to get results! ;)

-Laird

Platt Holden wrote:
>> [Case]
>> I think sometime you
>> fear the slippery slope. That if is you agree that any compromise
>> between individual and collective values is permissible that opens the
>> barn door. And yet you would deny due process... I am left scratching my
>> head.
>>     
> [Platt]
> I would deny the intellectual level right of due process to anyone who
> is dedicated to destroying that right, such as an Islamic terrorist.
>
>   
>> [Case]
>> There simply are areas of society where the collective good outweighs
>> individual values. In our system it is the role of the legislative
>> bodies to establish these. When we loose confidence in our institutions
>> this is tragic.
>>     
> [Platt]
> Rather I would look to the Supreme Court to uphold individual rights 
> against the collective. Legislators are tempted to pander to the 
> "collective good" (as they define it) to win votes -- a weakness of  
> democracy.
>
>   
>> [Platt]
>> 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?
>>
>> [Case]
>> Yes is makes sense but I have to add I am no fan of the whole levels
>> thing. When it comes to asserting the "moral" superiority of one level
>> over another I get outright hostile. I prefer to think that what Pirsig
>> is talking about is separate moral codes that operate at the various
>> levels. But I also note that at each level while the codes are different
>> many of the same issues are in play.
>>     
> [Platt]
> Can you explain why you get "outright hostile" at the moral superiority 
> of one level over another? Seems to me you would agree to the moral
> superiority of intellectual science over social level religion. 
>
>   
>> [Platt]
>> Here we simply disagree. You see terrorists as criminals. I see them as
>> combatants in a war. In law there's a difference.
>>
>> [Case]
>> I say that whatever they are they have status under the law and the law
>> should be followed. I don't know of any system of laws that allows a
>> person to be held indefinitely without charges.
>>     
> [Platt]
> Those dedicated to forcing their anti-intellectual religious laws on us 
> forfeit all status under our intellectual level laws. 
>  
>   
>> [platt]
>> 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.
>>
>> [Case]
>> Science is aimed at finding truth in the way you want it to. It is
>> always about making sense of the best evidence and seeking to disprove
>> what we think we know. It is a blessing that it can be changed. Sure
>> there have been hoaxes and whacko's but the community of science is far
>> more embarrassed by them and serious about cleaning up after itself that
>> any other field of human endeavor I can think of. If you are talking
>> about global climate change here I do not think there is any serous
>> scientific disagreement about what is going on.
>>     
> [Platt]
> I think there is serious scientific disagreement. The global cooling 
> consensus of a few years back indicates the science is far from 
> settled.
>
>   
>> [Case]
>> It is a political debate
>> not a scientific one. It would be just as wrong to characterize the
>> Intelligent Design crowd as offering a scientific argument against
>> evolution. They do not. They are part of a religious debate.
>>     
> [Platt]
> The intelligent design crowd relies heavily on the laws of probability 
> which, while not strictly scientific, are not religious. 
>
>
>