Platt to Andre: It's my understanding the levels are basically in opposition to one another and attempt to dominate, a necessary condition for morals to be understood. " 'Vice' is an example. In an evolutionary morality the meaning of vice is quite clear. Vice is a conflict between biological quality and social quality. Things like sex and booze and drugs and- tobacco have a high biological quality, that is, they feel good, but are harmful for social reasons. They take all your money. They break up your family. They threaten the stability of the community." (Lila, 13)
Andre: Not when used in moderation Platt, this is what I meant by 'harmonious balance'. Platt: In most cases the workers in factories were better off than the conditions they suffered in the environments from which they came where the threat of starvation was constant. Andre: Where they survived through their own means. These means were taken away from most with the drive towards industrialisation. Most farmers and labourers were dispossessed and forced to seek alternatives in cities (much as is now taking place in e.g. China). The conditions of the 'shelter' provided (if they were lucky enough) by the land- and industry owning classes for the 'new' labourers/factory workers is very well documented. They were an absolute disgrace, even by the standards as they applied then. Platt: Haven't they allowed free markets to flourish? That's the intelligent way to improve living conditions. Andre: Yep, and are very severe on excesses of abuse/ exploitation/ profit making/working conditions/health standards etc. Platt in answer to: > Andre: > Now, unless I completely misunderstand your neo-con persuasion Platt > this is exactly my beef (thanks Lu) with you. You DO only allow a > pattern of one-sided fixed values...i.e the neo-con values and any > variant on these, you dismiss out of hand as commie, lefty, do-goody > trash. While you, on the other hand, are intelligent, broad-minded, compassionate and all around superior person whose socialist values are exactly what the world needs. Andre: This is an ad hominem argument Platt, and you know it. You do not respond to the point I am making. Platt: You have something against deserving, loyal, hard working, healthy? Andre: Nope, but my experience of compassion is that it is not contingent upon these social values. Platt, in answer to my question about the role/function of the intellectual level: Certainly not to coerce others to your or my way of thinking or living. Andre: Come on Platt, this is a perfectly ligitimate question. I asked you what you see as what this level's role/ function is...not what it is not. Platt: Yet you constantly insist that that the way I interpret the MOQ is not the right way, as if you have the inside scoop on the MOQ's real meaning. Andre: No, I am exploring just as you. I just find it difficult to reconcile the purpose of the MoQ, Quality, with your neo-con ideology. If freedom (Quality), as Pirsig argues, is the 'movement' away from static PoV's, I do not understand how you can desperately cling to one (your neo-con one)...you being a arch MoQ'er...I thought. Hence my question as to how do you reconcile the two? Platt: But, I'm not complaining. I enjoy our conversations as it allows us to freely express our views. Andre: So am I Platt. Kind regards Andre 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/
