[MD] Changes in 2011

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

dmb,

> 
> dmb said:
> ...These are not simply alternative points of view. These positions have
> been maintained in the face of evidence that would and should convince
> any reasonable person. As I see it, these people have proven that they
> are not reasonable.

[Tim]
do you think 10,000 years from now, if someone were to study dmb in
these archives, they will say you are the pinnacle of reasonableness?


> 
> dmb says:
> 
> As I understand it, the MOQ says we are morally obliged to be reasonable.
> From Lila, Chp. 24:
> [SNIP] "... the Metaphysics of Quality. 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.

[Tim]
what is the reason for "usually" in this sentence?

As I imagine at the moment, RMP was speaking casually, to a broad
audience, but wanted to make sure to put in the proper caveat, so as not
to harm, and for the deep-explorer.  Either way, it is an honest and
reasonable restriction.

But the intellectual level is at the top of the static heap.  Standards
for reasonableness abut the unknown.  There is something about the
dynamic.  Where is evolution going?

I asked previously (but haven't yet given you time to reply), dmb, what
is your aim?  As far as I can see, 'reasonable' can't be defined - even
loosely - without an aim.


> [dmb, quoting RMP] 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. According to the Metaphysics of Quality
> these "human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational,
> metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher level
> of life from a lower level of life. They are for real."

[Tim]
do you see any suggestion of aims in the above?


> 
> [dmb] To be unreasonable is to be immoral. It doesn't mean you're a murderer or
> an adulterer. Reasonableness is an intellectual level value and that's
> why it's so crucial in a philosophical discussion group, which is
> obviously an intellectual activity.

[Tim]
intellectual activity doesn't exist as independent of DQ, life.  If you
have separated intellectual reasonableness from this 'field', I think
you have done so immorally, and unreasonably.

>[dmb] If you want to participate in
> intellectual practices, you need to have a decent respect for
> intellectual values like precision, clarity, and the ability to discern
> what's reasonable and what isn't.

[Tim]
dmb, I like this first clause, "if you want to participate in
intellectual practices...".  The thing is, I think that people do not
need to participate in intellectual practices in order to be moral, and
reasonable, in the greater sense.  This is not to say that ignoring the
intellect can be moral!  But, people have different capacities, and I am
imagining people with intellectual disabilities, etc.  From time to time
there is this girl I come across, who has some sort of disability, I
have never asked, but there is something of immense (I'm not being
hyperbolic) value I sense from her.  I have never talked with her or
anything, but she has the best smile I have ever seen.  She always seems
to be as happy as anyone has ever been.  She lights up the room.  I
suspect that she would be incapable in most every rational forum.  She
might be more reasonable than any of us.

if you want to confine 'reasonable' to intellectual pursuits, to matters
of truth, we CAN do that.  But then we will have to admit that there is
something pressing on it morally; that is, under certain circumstances
*pursuing* reasonability would be immoral.  And then, when you say, "As
I understand it, the MOQ says we are morally obliged to be reasonable.",
I would have to say, 'no', you can't say that; reasonability is a purely
static, intellectual pattern which you cannot *be*.  Such a static
pattern bears on inferior static, social patterns, and is to be seen in
that light, but dynamic being is a whole other issue.  In other words,
you could say that someone holds an intellectual position which is
unreasonable and immoral, intellectually, but so long as one does not
impose socially (etc.) the ramifications of that position on others, via
DQ, such moral contagion is contained to that individual, intellectual,
static pattern.  And then when you say, "To be unreasonable is to be
immoral.", this would be absurd because would be conflating static and
dynamic patterns of value in a way that should not be conflated.
 
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free