Platt, Roger, Horse, Magnus, all
well, could be I'm in the number of those indicated by Platt as:
> Some have attempted to make this site a platform for their pet Utopian
schemes to change the world according to some soup of
"humanitarian" sentiments
and
> those who join with an agenda in mind (always
requiring some form of government interference in people's lives)
I don't know, and I don't need to know it: it is Platt's problem, not mine.
While I greatly admire the open mind attitude of Roger, I have often troubles with Platt's rocky position. IMHO, in facts, it is at least equally utopian to state that it is possible to live without any government interference in our life. This position, well known as Anarchy, is also clearly a beautiful utopia. Similarly, I think it is utopian to state it is possible to live without any market interference in our life.
Said that, I hate both government interference (taxes, for examples) and market interference (advertising, for example) in my own life; but as Pirsig clearly states, the individual / intellectual level needs a *supporting* social level (that should be the role of government and market and all social patterns) and an intellectual life with no social interaction is utopian (read, for example, the first chapter of Lila).
Roger wrote:
> Many here dramatically distort him to fit into their views.
Well, to a certain extent it is unavoidable. The MOQ explains that in the end everyone is a religion of its own. Pirsig himself says it is better to decide our view and then find the philosophers fitting that view (I have not Lila here, so I can't quote the exact words and chapter, I think it's where he talks about William James and the tree). This way it is easy to fall in this distortion mistake. For example, leaving aside the political issues where this attitude is probably stronger, I've always found the position of those assuming that all patterns of value are merely intellectual is a distortion like that. While I know Roger has more sympathy than me about that.... who is distorting?
> I too agree that relativism and centralized utopian schemes are the
> antithesis of the MOQ.
Of course. Let me add also integralism, that is equally anthitetical to intellectual dynamism. Platt seems to say that everything he does not like is a "centralized utopian scheme" (if social) or a relativistic postmodern immoral viewpoint (if intellectual). In this, I find him too integralist, as he is rarely inclined to really hear and value the other's voice. His statements are always without discussions: black or white, capitalist or communist, moral or immoral
Take for example this absurd discourse about the "soup of humanitarian sentiments": according to that, I guess Platt finds it immoral that the US population has collected 2 billion dollars to help the families of the 11th September victims.... well, I do fear those who never have doubts. My latest messages about US and Latin America were not about "this hugly America eating turkeys while bombing the third world "; they were a criticism to the dogmatic agreement with everything about our current social system.
One who probably Platt will depict as a fanatic marxist is Horse. The quote Horse recently offered is worthy to be reproduced:
"There are so many kinds of problem people like Rigel around, he thought, but the ones who go
posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without
any expense to themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too. They use the morals to make
someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves. It doesn't matter what the moral
code is - religious morals, political morals, racist morals, capitalist morals, feminist morals, hippie
morals - they're all the same. The moral codes change but the meanness and the egotism stay the
same." (Lila, ch.7)
....if there's someone like Rigel here, sorry, IMO it's Platt.
Well, It's time to conclude as I don't mean to write an "ad hominem attack", and there's this risk..
Just a couple of things:
Platt suggested:
> Part of the problem is our differing views of history. What we need is
> an agreed upon third party--an unbiased source for historical fact.
> Probably there's no such animal in abstract, pure form. But would
> you agree to use an encyclopedia as a joint reference point? I
> suggest:
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia.html
>
> If agreed, let's continue. If not, suggest another reference or, if
> you feel there's no point in pursuing this line of discussion, we
> can call it a draw and move on to other matters.
So, is it this "objective" way the best one? Maybe. But, tell me, how can we agree that the reference point you suggest is a third party?
The problem is not only "our different view of history". It is *our different history*!
The history of Cuba I know is not impartial at all. An old Cuban told me it. A sort of Peyote ceremony, just with cigars and "mojitos" instead of Peyote. His story is not in any encyclopedia, and I don't know if it's true or not. It was a good story. Oh, of course I've searched for references and I've found all the range of possible answers: from absurd to true.
We could go on, Platt. You can offer your ideas with the reference you like, I'll do the same with mine. But maybe it's better to call it draw. Instead of arguing about "this hugly America eating turkeys while bombing the third world " (I've decided that in order to have a better point about America, I have to go there and offer Platt a Mojito.... ) we could help the Magnus' idea. Let's draw the MOQ tree, where every branch can freely search for its own growth.
ciao,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST