[MD] Emotions' place?

[Platt Holden]

> 
> 
> It is moral for intellectual Chinese to attack their collectivist masters,
> as they did in 1989. 
> 
> > "And this is a war in which intellect, to end the paralysis of society
> has
> > to know whose side it is on, and support that side and never undercut
> it.
> > Where biological values are undermining social values intellectuals
> must
> > identify social behavior, not matter its ethnic connection, and support
> it
> > all the way without restraint. Intellectuals must find biological
> > behavior, 
> > no matter what its ethnic connection, and limit or destroy destructive
> > biological patterns with complete moral ruthlessness., the way a doctor
> > destroys germs, before those biological patterns destroy civilization 
> > itself." (Lila,24) 
> 
> [Platt]
> > As above, intellect has to constantly battle the push for control by
> the
> > forces of collectivist Soc. PoV's that you have so eloquently described
> in
> > China. 
> 
> 
> 
> "It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code of
> intellect-vs. -society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
> control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury;
> habeas corpus; government by consent-these "human rights" are all
> intellect-
> vs.-society issues." (Lila, 24) 
> 
> You'll see better if you open the book.
> 
> It is taken then, that thy Bolshevik revolution o 1917 moral to thee in
> thy theory.
> Marxism being thy intellectual sudueing thy tyrranous czar collective
> regime.

No. It isn't moral to replace a tyranny with another tyranny. (I don't know 
why I ever bother to answer.)
 
> we ask lo- flat one, what is more moral to you?
> social control by a lone intellectual or
> social control by a collection of intellectuals?

Neither. Open the book and read what Pirsig says about the free market.