Hi David B:
> Platt wrote...
> Yes, and the message it ought to carry as I interpret the MOQ (and in the
> context of the debate about the particular memorial proposed) is that an
> intellectual pattern of empirical truth is superior to a social pattern of
> political correctness.
>
> Sure, some folks in the PC crowd can be awfully shrill, but that's true of
> every cause. In fact, the anti-PC crowd can be every bit as shrill. But
> that's just politics, not metaphysics.
Who said anything about shrillness?
>And I agree that intellectual
> patterns are superior to social patterns, but I think you've incorrectly
> characterized the two sides in this memorial debate.
I'm glad we agree on the superiority of intellectual patterns, i.e., truth.
>So-called political
> correctness has become a catch-phrase and a term of derision, but the
> original idea behind it is to assert intellectual principles like equal
> rights, equal protection and other solidly American values.
Pirsig describes "rights" as a moral code of intellect vs. society, the
right of the intellect to be free of social control.
>The push for
> diversity is only about inclusion. If a principle is applied only sometimes
> then its not really a principle. History clearly shows that certain kinds
> of people have been excluded form the ideals of liberal Democracy. Its
> nothing less than an effort to make America live up to her own ideals, and
> to fight the long-standing social conventions and attitudes that contradict
> those ideals. Its no accident that this so-called movement comes out of the
> universities. And besides that, the easily observable fact that New York
> city's rescue workers are black, brown, and female, as well as white and
> male, is no less empirical than any photograph.
Inclusion (diversity) is a social value, not intellectual. When you imply
that the movement for diversity (which has become a movement for
conformity and moral equivalency) is intellectual because it comes out
of universities, I thought of Pirsig's description of liberal intellectuals
who "actually admired the criminal types who showed up." He went on
to say that "What passed for morality within this crowd was a kind of
vague, amorphous soup of sentiments known as 'human rights.'"
Sometime I would love to hear those who preach about rights mention
responsibilities, even if it only amounts to paying lip service to the
notion of accountability for one's lot in life.
> Platt also wrote...
> But the truth of the three white fireman raising the flag is a
> BETTER truth than a diversity-imposed, politically correct version of the
> truth. That's what I understand the MOQ to say. Don't you?
>
> Nope. The firemen raising the flag is a huge lie, not a "BETTER truth", but
> its a distortion that has very little to do with the color of their skin,
> which would probably be dipicted bronze or something anyway. People like
> the image because it looks so much like the raising of the flag over Iwo
> Jima. That WW2 image is rightly seen as a dipiction of a hard-won victory,
> but the NYC firemen are raising the flag over a pile of rubble that
> included thousands of shattered bodies. Let's not pretend that its an image
> of victory. Such a pretense only denies the horror, grief and sadness. That
> denial might make us all feel better and the desire to avert the eyes is
> understandable, but it distorts the truth. In that sense, its a lie. Add
> all that to the patriotic appeal of the flag and I think its clear that
> such a memorial should be classifed as a social level truth and not as an
> intellectual truth. In fact, I'm not sure any statue could rightly be
> called an intellectual artifact.
I think the Statue of Liberty is an intellectual artifact, symbolizing
freedom of the mind from constraint and indoctrination, to question,
inquire and speak without fear of punishment as well as freedom from
state tyranny. The intellectual truth of the three white firemen who
raised the flag was that they were three white firemen. Race
consciousness demanded by the diversity crowd was a social-value
phony add-on.
> On a related topic, Platt wrote...
> Engineering belongs mostly in the inorganic level with some spill over to
> the biological with genetic bioengineering. Then there are the social
> engineers, but their legitimacy is highly questionable. Medicine is mostly
> biological level with some spill over to the social level with psychiatry,
> another questionable pursuit.
> Here you've confused the sciences with the things they study. Engineers
> certainly use organic and inorganic materials and often for social
> purposes, but Engineering itself is essentially an applied science and as
> such it is at the intellectual level. The same holds true for the social
> and medical sciences.
Agree. The same holds true for all the levels that I metaphorically
connected to areas of study in order to show how the levels differed.
That I failed to make it clear that I was speaking metaphorically is my
fault. This is the second time I had to explain it. (For me, a reader who
misunderstands a writer is prima facie evidence that the writer was not
clear.)
Platt
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 - 16:01:48 BST