[MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

Wed Sep 27 16:11:27 PDT 2006

Micah, I'm having trouble taking you seriously now ...

I accept your definition of "public interest", and then you ask me to
define it again ?

If our measure is public interest, then my idea of greater good is
more interest for more public, or variations on that idea. We'd still
need to assume definitions of public and interest, so we're not out of
the woods, ever, if we're going to rely on defintions anyway.

You also say I'm being vague yet you say.
>
> Freedom like quality is indefinable, usually the limits are what defines
> freedom, but then freedom with limits is not freedom, is it?
>
Keep talking ... I like that .... we may shed more light ... at least
we've dropped any interest in definitions which is a better start. Try
this idea "Freedom is really a dynamic balance of Freedom and
Not-Freedom"

I can be as precise or vague about my definitions as you like, but I'm
not sure it would help.

Ian

On 9/27/06, Micah <micah at roarkplumbing.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Help me understand your meaning of "public interest" - please give your
> definition.
>
> Freedom like quality is indefinable, usually the limits are what defines
> freedom, but then freedom with limits is not freedom, is it?
>
> You are very vague...please define this "greater good" to which you keep
> referring.
>
> Micah
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:20 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters
>
>
> Hi Micah, responses inserted ...
>
> On 9/27/06, Micah <micah at roarkplumbing.com> wrote:
> > Ian,
> >
> > You didn't define "public interest", you just renamed it using less
> > definable terms. The problem with the "public interest" is that it is
> > definable, but no one will abide by the proper definition.
> >
> > The "public interest" is that which is the best interest of the public.
>
> [IG] Ah so it was a trick question :-) You already had a definition in
> mind. That definition's OK by me. I need to say something about
> definitions though. Your definition shifts the problem along to
> defining "best interests" and "the public". ie your definition is
> simply a logical construction of these two. Definitions don't really
> help in the real world. I think it was Minsky who said don't confuse
> definition with understanding.
>
> > Meaning that everyone agrees with and can benefit from, that interest. The
> > only thing that can be agreed on and benefit all, is freedom. Freedom is
> the
> > only "public interest". Freedom is also the only greater good, and it
> > increases happiness...and it has quality.
>
> [IG] So you added your definition of that "interest" ... Freedom.
> Great, no problem, but that's freedom within some moral framework of
> evaluating relative "goods" ... just like the MoQ. Freedom is a bigger
> debate ... already running in other threads. There are many subtley
> different working understandings of "freedom", however defined by
> whoever.
>
> > You may say some people do not
> > want to be free, but that is a choice that is made through freedom. Beware
> > those that don't define the "public interest", because surely enslavement
> is
> > their interest.
> >
> > Who do you consider good/great writers? Pirsig?
>
> [IG] Prose style / communication of ideas (irrespectve of the ideas) T
> E Lawrence, Dupuy, Dennett, Voltaire, Dostoevsky, Feynman, AC  Clarke,
> William Gibson, Eco, Lem, Douglas Adams, Melville, Willis, Salman
> Rushdie, Pirsig or course, to name a random few ... from the top of my
> head. I guess the common feature is wit.
>
> >
> > I would remind you that "free economy" implies no interference. Adam Smith
> > has covered self interest and free economies in "Wealth of Nations", so I
> > won't attempt to here.
>
> [IG] Literally "no interference" is just one extreme end of the
> argument. Appropriate freedom, within a moral framework .... etc. Adam
> Smith I have read significant chunks of ... economics / MBA stuff ...
> people who sloganize his "free market" miss most of the subtleties of
> his good arguments. But he's hardly the final word. Have you read
> "Economics of Love" or any of the more recent "narrative" based
> economic theories ?
>
> >But how do you feel about tobacco subsides? That work
> > out for you?
>
> [IG] Tobacco subsidies .... I don't know details, or have any direct
> interest, but .... having got a large tobacco industry (historical
> fact), the usual argument for subsidies is transitional, not support
> or preservation ... part of the dynamic of creating industries of
> greater moral value / public interest .. the problem is the corruption
> of the intent, when individuals stand to gain more than the public
> interest ... so such interventions need careful, open management of
> appropriate freedoms. (And then we're into appropriate "MoQ-safe"
> mechanisms of governance ... which is a subject I've been hoping would
> get a serious non-partisan airing)
>
> >
> > As for mimicking her style, your review contains no gray. You say the idea
> > was "great" and the execution "painful", which I equate to hate, because I
> > hate feeling pain. You however, if I read correctly, do not hate pain...do
> I
> > detect a little Sadomasochism?
>
> [IG] Not that I'm aware of. But sometime breaking eggs, taking a hit
> for a greater good, is necessary. I'd have though great but painful
> indicated a middle ground. As I said the catch-22 of discourse is to
> treat what is said as logical assertions. Damned if you do, damned if
> you don't. The only antidote is more discussion, experience and
> interaction. Language has its limitations.
>
> >
> > You felt "disappointed and sad for her"? What an odd little statement.
>
> [IG] Perhaps I should have stuck at disappointed. As I said a great
> idea, an opportunity missed. Sympathy with her predicament as a
> Russian emigre with a necessarily narrow, dare i say naive, view of
> her new US saviour.
>
> One thing she is very strong on is "the examined life" .... don't do
> anything just because it is the received wisdom. Ask and know. Can't
> fault her there.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> >
> > Micah
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:43 PM
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters
> >
> >
> > Micah, not being an objectivist myself, I may be unable to provide the
> > answer you want.
> >
> > Greater good of the greater number, net increase in happiness, net
> > progress up the MoQ hierarchy. Some good utilitarian (pragmatic)
> > measure.
> >
> > Hate is a bit strong, but I found her style painful, I actually fely
> > disappointed and sad for her. It didn't stop me searching for her
> > arguments though, but I just couldn't find any, and nor could anybody
> > I asked on here.
> >
> > I'd be interested in an example I could either agree with or refute
> > (other than the implicit one I already gave ... about bad public
> > interference in free economy somehow inferring that public
> > interference was ispo-facto bad.)
> >
> > I'd also be interested in an example of where you see my style as
> > mimicking hers, It's quite possible, a kind of catch-22 of finding any
> > credible way of breaking out of the objectivist style of
> > argumentation.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > On 9/26/06, Micah <micah at roarkplumbing.com> wrote:
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > As an Objectivist, I would be interested in your definition of the
> "public
> > > interest".
> > >
> > > As for writing style, Ayn fits her philosophy - which is the mark of a
> > good
> > > writer. Characters are good or bad, etc. Ayn is either loved or hated.
> > > Objectivism - either/or - good/bad. You even mimic her style in review.
> > >
> > > Which of her arguments can you logically refute?
> > >
> > > I totally agree that MOQ and Objectivism are tight.
> > >
> > > Micah
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> > > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:13 PM
> > > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ben, You said
> > > I've read Atlas, which I thought was a brilliant book.  Rand condemns
> > > altrusim, which I thought was the weakest part of her argument, although
> > she
> > > may be defining altruism differently than how I would.  Rand condemns
> > > certain behaviors that are justified as being altruistic (such as wealth
> > > redistribution) but I believe her to be quite an altruist herself.  The
> > > whole point of her book is that by disrespecting the industrialists--the
> > > movers and the shakers--politicans and bureaucrats destroy society.
> > >
> > > I've read it too. I thought it was brilliant idea for a book, but I
> > > found her thin on actual arguments generally, and mind-numbingly
> > > pedestrian in style.
> > >
> > > The behaviors she condemns, that were justified as altruistic, were in
> > > fact so obviously fictional, misguided, misconceived and corruptly
> > > applied legislation etc, that I found her pointing out the folly as
> > > just too simplistic. No way did she have any arguments against well
> > > devised "public interest" incentives.
> > >
> > > This industrialist is good, this law is bad, these law makers are
> > > corrupt, therefore any and all public intervention is bad. Some
> > > argument.
> > >
> > > Disrespecting anybody is bad for society, not just industrialists.
> > > (She just saw the US in contrast to her troubled Soviet motherland at
> > > the time, and made too simple a conclusion. McArthyist I said several
> > > times) I did find that in summary her philosophy, despite being
> > > descibed as "objectivism", was remarkably close to evolutionary
> > > psychology and MoQ in practice.
> > >
> > > Ian
> > > 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/
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > 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/
> >
> > 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/
> >
> 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/
>
> 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/
>