Adrie 2.6.2 the moral framework derived from evolution , an introduction to Rmp's moq (thanks Ant) the giant never sleeps.
2013/4/16 Ant McWatt <[email protected]> > > > 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 > -- parser 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
