Hamilton Priday stated to Ant McWatt, April 14th 2013:
Greetings, Ant -- Uh-oh . . . now I know I'm in trouble! Ant McWatt comments: I don't know about that Ham, it just might be your lucky day! On Sat 4/13 at 8:08 PM, Ant McWatt wrote: > Good to hear from you too Ham. (Yes, like most people on this Board > I don't have much time or interest in Essentialism but you deserve > credit for actually working out a moral system for yourself. A few > more billion people on this planet could do with trying to do the same). Essentialism is a philosophy that offers a working ontology based on an original metaphysical thesis. It includes an epistemology, but doesn't pretend to be a "moral system" for me or anyone else. Morality is a value orientation worked out through the individual's life experience. Ant McWatt comments: Thank you for the clarification there, Ham. So, if I read you correctly, the MOQ includes a goal of improving your life (both aesthetically and ethically) while Essentialism is no help in these regards? As such, certainly on face value, it seems difficult to justify wasting my time with the latter. Moreover, I’ve just read your “Values in the Balance” blog and had another look at the first chapter of your Essentialism essay (“The Mechanical Garden”) and I think the primary difficulty you’re going to have presenting any ideas here is that you’re still in an SOM prison while most contributors here escaped it or are well on their way in doing so. I'm afraid no-one in their right mind wants to return to jail (even a metaphysical one) if they can avoid it. For instance, in the “Mechanical Garden” the question of “Does consciousness exist?” arises. Now this is the type of question (like the one “Does God exist?”) that is Un-asked in the MOQ. Both questions are symptoms of why SOM gets it so wrong and why it leads to thousands of philosophical platypi (as Pirsig illustrates in chapter 8 of LILA). The MOQ therefore regards Richard Dawkins and Fundamentalist Christians as metaphysically the same; both parties have (or at least think they have) answers to a question built on inadequate metaphysical foundations; philosophical quicksand which has already trapped too many thinkers for too long. I’d therefore strongly recommend that you re-read Chapter 8 in LILA a couple of times. If you can get your head round this chapter and my last two paragraphs here, you’ll probably have something of value to contribute here. Since Platt got his ban at Discuss; there has been the vacancy of “MOQ Republican” here… but there just isn’t one for an “SOMist Republican” (or SOMist democrat, for that matter), I’m afraid! ---- cut ---- Ham continued April 14th 2013: > The reality of experience is a “dynamic process” in which subjects > and objects come into existence... Ant McWatt commented: > Christ, I don't think I've experienced a "subject" or an "object" > since the late 20th century. Sometimes reading posts like yours > is like coming across a story that I composed when I was seven; > a quaint if rather naive way at looking at things. Well, I couldn't help noting that your friend Prof. Gurr opens his blog with this quote: "Quality is the parent, the source of all subjects and objects." - Robert Pirsig. (Maybe that was before he got his honorary doctorate.) Ant McWatt comments: Well, of course, that quote Henry uses is from ZMM; years before the MOQ of LILA was written and both subjects and objects got un-ceremonially dumped (in favour of the four static levels of quality with their evolutionary relationship)!” Ham continued April 14th 2013: Ant seized the opportunity to inject his collectivist worldview: > For instance, subjects and objects leave no room for society. > I'm afraid - unlike the recently departed Wicked Witch of the > West(minster) - that I think it is a high quality idea to assume > that there is a society that intellectual patterns are embedded in; > that there are social rules/norms to be followed and consequences > to be had if there are not followed e.g. it's bit like driving through > red lights in New York or London. It will be only a matter of > a few minutes before - if you're lucky, that the police and/or > ambulance people pick you up - you discover that this specific > social convention is worth (i.e. has value) in following. > > In other words, you need to address such basics first before > moving on to such things as "Ultimate Reality". I am disgusted to see the leftists in Britain portray their late great PM in this obscene manner. Margaret Thatcher was a woman of principle who single-handedly put the UK back on its feet, saving it from a socialist fate. We could well use the insight and resolve of such a leader in the current U.S. administration. Ant McWatt comments: Well, you've side stepped a question which you will need to deal with at some point or another to get your Essentialism just off the ground as a viable metaphysics. Anyway, the MOQ regards right-wingers as relating more to the static/ordered side of politics and left-wingers as relating more to the Dynamic/Freedom side of things. However, I’m afraid Mrs Thatcher was a little beyond just being a little “static” or a little on the conservative side: like other despotic leaders – she lacked empathy with the general population of the country that she was the so-called guardian of; a psychopath who was already losing her mind well BEFORE her term of being prime minister ended in 1990. Remember, I’ve had to live with the devastating consequences of her idiotic egotistically driven government over the last 30 years – on a daily basis - while you have just read severely edited propaganda about her on Fox News and Limbaugh. Finally in regard to this particular point, it’s worth remembering that – to their eternal credit – that Oxford University rejected the proposal in 1985 – the height of her prime ministership - to give Thatcher an honorary doctorate by a ratio of more than two to one. I’d therefore have rather a little more faith in their opinion (the first university to significantly recognise the value of ZMM and my PhD) than Rush Limbaugh: Oxford votes to refuse Thatcher degree Originally published on 30 January 1985 Oxford University dealt a wounding blow to the Prime Minister yesterday when its governing assembly, Congregation, refused her an honorary doctorate by a margin of more than two to one. She is only the second person this century to suffer the snub, which came at the most crowded meeting of Congregation that most of those present could remember. The "No" exit of Sir Christopher Wren's Sheldonian Theatre was jammed like a London Tube station in the rush hour long after the 'Aye' door had taken its last voter. Dons and senior administrators decided by 738 votes to 319 against giving Mrs Thatcher the scarlet and crimson gown and velvet bonnet of a doctor of civil law. The decision was welcomed by the president of the Student Union, Mr James Dickinson, who presented Congregation with a petition against the doctorate signed by 5,000 students in the seven days since term began. A banner was slung across Somerville, the Prime Minister's old college, saying "No degree for Mrs Thatcher." A Downing Street spokesman said last night "The Prime Minister thought it was very gracious of Oxford University when the Hebdomadal Council proposed that she should be accorded an honorary degree. However, it is entirely in the hands of the university. If they do not wish to confer the honour, she is the last person to wish to receive it." Dr Denis Noble, professor of cardiovascular physiology and an organiser of opposition to the doctorate, said after the Oxford meeting: "A convincing even mammoth majority demonstrates the seriousness of Oxford's purpose in protesting against the damage inflicted by government policy on science, education and health." The rebuff is a remarkable breach of precedent at the traditionally conservative university. It has accepted all other candidates proposed by its "cabinet," the Hebdomadal Council, this century except for the former Pakistani president Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He was defeated in 1975 by 239 votes to 181 on the grounds that he shared responsibility for massacres in Bangladesh. Salt will be rubbed in the wound by the fact, emphasised by many speakers in favour of the proposal, that all Oxford-educated prime ministers this century have received honorary doctorates. The scale of the Prime Minister's defeat was due to a huge turnout by scientific and medical dons, who rarely take part in academic debates but have been roused by the effects of government economic cuts on their research. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/30/thatcher-honorary-degree-refused-oxford Ham continued April 14th 2013: As for the "basics" of reality, as you will see from my Value Page this week, perhaps the most fundamental is: The "common good" originates with the individual self. Or, as Ayn Rand put it, "No man can think for another." Social conventions such as morality "have value" only to the extent that this value is realized by individuals. Ant McWatt comments: I don’t have much to add to Ron’s helpful comments about this point from yesterday other than to say that freedom - by itself - is just a negative goal. This is why hippies - despite their often affable character - can be often be regarded as just irresponsible drags on society. So, unless I hear a better argument, that’s the category I will be placing Rand in. In the meantime, best of luck with the “homework”! Ant 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
