On 2/17/13 12:31 PM, "David Buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Thomas said to dmb: > > Boiled down to it¹s crudest form, like was done with pragmatism, The MoQ says > the higher your IQ the better, more moral a person you are. But it¹s even > better than that! All you really have to do is claim you¹re an ³intellectual > following dynamic quality² and you have the moral right to judge, and act on > those judgments, up to and including use of lethal force on any individual or > society you deem to be lesser than you. ... > > dmb says: > I think that's ridiculous slander. It suggests that intellectual quality is > lethal and smart people are dangerous. Hate intellect much? DT: Who¹s slandered? In getting a grip you might reconsider Dan post about his exchange with the author: > DG: > Rigel seems representative of the negative quality that celebrity > brings in its wake. I get the feeling that the character of Rigel was > modeled after more than one person? > RMP: > No Rigel is just me, setting the stage for the MOQ. I tried to think > of the best attack I could make and then put it in his mouth. One > interviewer asked me, ³Are you really Phædrus?² The answer was, ³Yes I > really am Phædrus. I also really am Richard Rigel. I also really am > Lila. I also really am the boat.² So ³Lila² is a pseudo-semi-autobiographical fictional account, a novel, in which the author developed the characters Lila, Rigel, Phædrus to help illustrate a metaphysics theory, or hypothesis he calls the MoQ. I think that he was very successful in doing that. In this fictional account the character Lila is portrayed as being dominated by biological qualities or values, Rigel by social values, and Phædrus by intellectual values. Under the theory of the MoQ this makes Phædrus morally superior, a better human, than both the other characters. Further this is not Phædrus¹s opinion, given the metaphysical fact that he is in the sway of intellectual values. Given this, does he not have the moral authority, the right, to make these judgments solely on his own and act on them? That anyone would not find this idea highly objectionable and morally repugnant, I find baffling. And if you claim this a mischaracterization, I claim that it is one that can be very easily made by anyone. But since you seem either not to heard of or experienced the law of unintended consequences I guess your tender sensibilities being outraged in understandable. Dave PS: Oh and you might want to pay close attention about the tendencies of left brain biased individuals in Ian McGilchrist's article. PPS: When you get out of law school and figure out which fictional character, Lila, Rigel, or Phædrus I have supposedly slandered, I will patiently awaiting your lawsuit, or dead. 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/md/archives.html
