From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Jun 14 2004 - 07:29:58 BST
Dear Mark M. (Valuemetaphysics@aol.com),
You did a good job comparing Ayn Rand's Objectivism and the MoQ (10 Jun 2004
14:09:10 +0100 and later), but your conclusions about Platt were too rash
and understandably made him refuse to discuss with you any further. You
should have asked him first to comment on your comparison before drawing
conclusions.
If subject-object thinking can be integrated in the MoQ, why can't Ayn
Rand's Objectivism? If translated into 'high quality intellectual patterns
of value' (or lower quality, depending on what you compare it with), we
would get a more constructive type of discussion than in this way.
Let me remind you of an earlier discussion of Ayn Rand on this list in March
last year. I copy Sam's contribution underneath as an example of a more
constructive approach.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Elizaphanian" <elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk>
Aan: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Verzonden: woensdag 26 maart 2003 14:49
Onderwerp: Re: MD Ayn Rand
Hi Steve,
Sorry not to have responded on this one before - it slipped through my net.
Ayn Rand I find very interesting, although I have only read the one book,
Atlas Shrugged. I think I will now always have in my mind the image of John
Galt, being tortured, in order to force him to 'take charge', as a symbol of
what state-socialism is ultimately about.
I agree with what Platt says about her - "No philosopher IMO has analyzed
and traced the implications of intellectual level premises better than Rand.
As Pirsig pointed out, the intellectual level demands individual freedom, a
conclusion which Rand fleshes out in full. Where Rand fails is her lack of
understanding of the role of the social level in blocking biological forces.
Nor does she take into account, or account for, man's intuitive
understandings. Metaphysically, the MOQ has more explanatory power than
Rand's Objectivism."
I am not convinced that her 'no-holds-barred' capitalism is either desirable
or attainable, but, as Platt, says, as a description of what a society
wholly inhabited by intellectually dominated people might look like, she is
a striking writer. I originally thought the fourth level should be called
the 'individual' level (before I read Rand) and there seems to be a large
area of compatibility between what I call a 'eudaimonic MoQ' and substantial
elements of Objectivism.
However, as you expect, I agree that Rand is an entirely secular thinker,
and so falls down in that regard. Her conceptions are entirely unmystical;
she seems just to describe the fourth level; she has no regard for the value
of the social level; and she has no conception of DQ. I would say that she
grasped an important truth, but it was a partial truth - and a truth that
can be incorporated within the MoQ
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 14 2004 - 07:51:24 BST