Re: MD Undeniable Facts

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Fri Apr 25 2003 - 15:48:28 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "Re: MD What is a living being?"

    Hi Johnny,
    > >Not many people I know "fetishize DQ." Most are stuck in familiar
    > >patterns and enjoy their routines.
    > There is a growing trend to consider morality bad, and things that break
    > morality as good. People who enjoy their routines are mocked, as I believe
    > you are doing right there. Some routines are better to be stuck in than
    > others.

    You run in a different crowd than me. Only postmodernists, for instance,
    of which there are relatively few, want to break the morality of logic,
    objectivity and empiricism.

    > >To question the "shoulds" of the prevailing culture is the key to a better
    > >life. History proves that again and again, beginning with "Why should I
    > >not eat this apple?"
    > That was the Original Sin, the first immoral act, and according to the
    > story, life was better before that, now we have toil, pain, etc.

    Life was better when we could live like zombies without knowledge? I
    don't think so..

    > The
    > "shoulds" should be followed, not questioned. The prevailing culture wants
    > a better life as much as anyone, and there are all sorts of moral
    > mechanisms to achieve that without wholesale abandonment of morality in
    > general.

    Like what?

    > >"Get laid" is an important part of the code of art? That's a new one on
    > >me. I missed my calling.
    > Pirsig of course said it was more like innovate and create beauty or
    > something, but he was just trying to get laid.

    Unworthy of comment.

    > >So the universe was created from an "expectation of meaning." That's a new
    > >one on me, too.
    > I know you just answered this, but where do you feel the universe came from
    > again? And why?

    From the principle of good. Why? Because it's good.

    > >There's nothing reasonable about the effect Rachmaninov's 3rd piano
    > >concerto has on me.
    > I hate to shatter your illusion, but it is entirely reasonable. You like
    > Rachmaninov and not Eminem for REASONS. I don't know what they are, you
    > don't even know what they are, but they are there.

    If you don't know what they are, how do you know they are there? You
    faith in determinism is like the priest's faith in God.

    > Perhaps it's best not
    > to investigate what they are, it doesn't really matter. But something
    > about your circumstances growing up and becoming who you are you today
    > makes the 3rd piano concerto especially effectual on you. If it was just
    > something about the 3rd PC, then everyone would share the same reaction to
    > it.

    That's partially true. What I'm emphasizing is not my personal history
    but the "effect." If you've never experienced the effect, no one can
    explain it to you. Satchmo Louis Armstrong is quoted as saying, "What
    we play is life." Does that make any sense to you?

    > > > > Why does not every new record strike us as great, then?
    > > > >
    > > > >Because not every new record is any good.
    > > >
    > > > Based on static patterns, obviously, right?
    > >
    > >Wrong. Based on your innate sense of beauty whose "pattern" has yet
    > >to be discovered. Otherwise, every painting would be a Rembrandt.
    > Huh? What is the sense of beauty innate to?

    To you, to me, to every human being, some to a higher degree than

    > The only paintings that are
    > Rembrandts are the ones that were produced by the static patterns that were
    > Rembrandt. We like them if they agree with our static patterns, which we
    > mostly share, but not all of us do, some of us don't like Rembrandt or
    > think they is any good at all, we like Paul Klee much more. I won't accept
    > that there is just some mystical innate beauty just because you refuse to
    > investigate the source of it.

    Ok, you tell me the source. You've admitted it exists.

    > > > >Your whole philosophy boils down to, "There's nothing new under the
    > > > >sun."
    > > >
    > > > There is nothing new under the sun.
    > >
    > >So, I was right.
    > Basically, I am saying that this is a reasonable universe. Everything
    > happens for a reason. New things, if all were known, would be entirely
    > predictable.

    No free will?

    > > > How so? Evolution is itself a static pattern and all patterns have
    > > > been changing and evolving constantly as they interact with others.
    > >
    > >It's the little word "interact" that's the key. Why interact? Why not just
    > >stay the same? That would be the most moral from your point of view
    > >wouldn't it?
    > Everything is patterns interacting. There are no isolated patterns. A
    > bird attempts to do its pattern, a worm attempts to do its.


    > All patterns tend to maintain their pattern, because it is good
    > when they do, but in the course of trying to do their pattern, other
    > patterns get thwarted.

    "Because it is good when they do." Now we're getting somewhere.

    > >Oh, oh. Enter good old stale, static left-wing political thinking.
    > Do you deny you've been marketed to?

    I love being marketed to. I learn of new products and services I might
    want to improve my life.

    > >I'm all for eliminating taxes. I never heard a liberal say that. :-)
    > I'm actually not for eliminating taxes, just changing where they come from.
    > Instead of income tax, I like luxury taxes, large sales taxes on computers
    > and consumer electronics and cars and property and furniture of like 30%.
    > And I like the idea of a national sales tax that would be about the same as
    > the 2-3% that credit card companies skim off all our transactions with
    > stores.

    Hey, nobody says you have to use a credit card (except the car rental
    people). As for eliminating the income for a national sales tax, I'm for it.

    > We should get that money, not First USA shareholders and
    > executives, so lets eliminate their function by nationalizing the banking
    > network infrastructure. They had their day, now it is time for the open
    > source community to really do something useful.
    > I imagine a public network that would transfer the money out of the buyers
    > account and into a government escrow account for a set period of time and
    > then, minus the sales tax, into the sellers account (both the buyers
    > account and the sellers account could be accounts in this public database,
    > no one would need to have a bank anymore). All transactions would securely
    > and privately go through this network, so that escrow account would be a
    > huge rainy day fund. Car and house payments would sit in the account for a
    > few days before being transferred to the sellers account, small items like
    > household goods would sit for a few hours. It's hard to know what could be
    > done with the trillions of dollars that would be available in that fund,
    > perhaps money could be loaned for tuition and housing from this fund at no
    > interest.

    Big Brother prying into every banking transaction? It's already bad
    enough that the Feds force banks to report your dividend income. Are
    you a socialist at heart? When you say things like, "We should get this
    money," who is the "we?"



    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 25 2003 - 15:49:59 BST