[MD] The kind of will that is "free"

[Michael R. Brown]

Hi, Joseph Maurer -

> It seems to me the purpose of rhetoric is to put perceptions into words.

Given that ZAMM comes to a defense of the rhetorikos, what does this say 
about Bob as a philosopher? I wonder if there are any post-modern takes on 
ZAMM/Lila? I certainly feel a very artful (in the best sense) framing of the 
MOQ in those books ... the fact that it's in a setting, and so 
personally-nakedly, that we're shown with great vividness and care how the 
MOQ arose, in those books - this is very significant. To paraphrase a 
reviewer (and applying to a very dissimilar book), the parallels to "Atlas 
Shrugged" are patent.

But In giving us the analog, unsuspected background from/in which the MOQ 
arose - are we not being given something very nourishing? Both as admirers 
of the MOQ and as persons? Bob is so much more organic and whole, as a 
literary artist, than the Post-Moderns or Rand. I 've been rereading 
"Atlas," and while enjoying some of it very much, it’s so steely and in 
places so disjointed/constructed. It's a pure emanation of the personality 
of the author, in all its varied light and dark. In MOQ terms, she tries to 
strictly discipline and control DQ by reducing it to inescapable, 
everlasting SQ structures in the mind. Yet she really wants to inspire, at 
points.

Here's another parallel with Rand (specifically, some of the schisms around 
her): does the MOQ admit of development and extension? If one worked out an 
implication, and Bob were not around to weigh in, if so he chose - would 
that become part of the MOQ, or is the MOQ locked down only to what he 
himself authorized? Would his dharma heir, in time, be able to authorize an 
extension?

> The process of creating and using words is a learned process of moving 
> from an emotional apprehension of DQ perceptions which is an individual 
> emotional activity to a conceptual intellectual activity.

That's part of it. But words have an evolutionary-psychological component, 
arising out of tribal signaling. Now they know bird have "names" in their 
songs. The computational/intellect part is terribly important - one reason I 
love Rand for pointing out how important it is for our very existence, right 
here - but that's not all.

> If done well rhetoric would trigger an indefinable emotional response in 
> another which he then would express in his own words indicating how his 
> response followed the source for his actions even if the words were not 
> the same.

Yes! It's very emotionally rich being a human, or can be, and good 
art/rhetoric can help awaken us to this. I'm not politically left, but once 
when I was in London I heard Tony Blair speaking, and I found him so 
impressive I exclaimed, "With a guy like that, I could go Labour!"


MRB
http://www.fuguewriter.com