Hi John B:
> When a debate gets to the stage of one person shouting "It is" and the
> other shouting "It ain't", there seems to me to be two sensible options.
> One is to just walk away. The other is to try to find some larger context
> where just possibly there could be some mutual understanding, and even the
> potential of some shift in otherwise entrenched positions. Joining in and
> shouting more loudly seems to me pretty futile.
One man's "entrenched position" is another's well-thought-out
perspective. Obviously, your own position about the value of "finding a
larger context" can be called "entrenched" by anyone who wants to put
a negative spin on it. Seems to me you could be looking for some ego
strokes for putting yourself "above the fray."
> The debate between David and Roger has flared several times in this forum.
> I get either bemused or angry about some of the statements made defending
> the US, but my shouting about that is not helpful.
Ah yes. Let it never be said that John B. engages in any activity that is
not in some way "helpful."
> In my view David is absolutely correct in his assessment that defending a
> particular society is of lower value than debating intelligently the ideas
> which might improve all societies.
I see no problem in defending a society (either one in existence or one
proposed like "dynamic socialism") whose ideas would "improve all
societies." We have just heard Gav propose an ideal society. Should
he be chastised for defending it? Why don't you set forth your ideal
society so we can intellectually assess its value? Roger, I and others
"defend" the U.S. and the free enterprise system because the
underlying ideas are necessary for the intellectual level to flourish. If
you object to ideas of private property, individual rights, and limited
government, then say so. What sort of society to you envision that
would better accommodate and support the intellectual level?
Chomsky's "libertarian socialism" perhaps?
> If you can't concede this, then I wonder
> how much you have grasped of the MOQ. I have no problem debating the
> validity of the MOQ (I do it all the time), but to say the MOQ is wrong
> because it is un-american would be to totally lose the plot. Do you agree?
Certainly. But to say that the MOQ proposes "dynamic socialism" would
be also be to totally lose the plot, wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, I
wonder how much YOU have grasped the MOQ. (Actually, I wonder that
when you critique the MOQ with the arguments you use. But that's
another story.)
> The issue David raised is whether intellectual values are of higher quality
> than social values. But that is not what my post was about, hence why I
> introduced a new title. I was looking at what causes people to change, and
> what implications that has for seemingly entrenched debates that seem to go
> nowhere when argued in terms of proof and evidence. I have used Wilber's
> analysis because I find it helpful.
Your underlying assumption about "changing people" is that those who
don't see things as you do need changing--a frightening "I know better
than you" attitude.
> With reference to your points
>
> "1) on a Wilber-certified lower developmental level than David, Gavin
> and yourself,"
>
> Pirsig introduces the four levels as a fundamental component of the MOQ. He
> makes clear that the intellectual level is to be valued above the social
> level. If you choose to support the social level against the intellectual
> level, then you place yourself at a lower level in Pirsig's hierarchy than
> those who choose the opposite. I happen to find Wilber's levels more
> helpful, but the same holds true. If humans develop through stages then
> some will be at higher levels than others. Sorry if that offends you.
You, or course, are at a higher level than me or Roger or others who
defend the U.S. Suggesting an alternative society that would be more
supportive of the intellectual level than the U.S. would be, of course,
beneath you. Your not-so-subtle attempts at self-congratulation are
truly laughable. Sorry if that offends you.
> " 2) that we are suffering great pain because of this deformity,"
>
> I have no idea if you are suffering 'great' pain or any pain at all. I
> never said you were.
You said Roger was. (And by implication, those who agree with him.)
Quoting from your post of 19 Mar. "I am very aware of the pain in
Roger's words in a response to something I wrote when he speaks of
his 'enlightenment that my views here don't matter because I am both a
lackey to the giant and abnormally tainted of defensive self-delusion."
Do you deny the record?
> I said that pain is often the accompaniment to any
> change of level, and I'll stick with that. I explicitly said that I suffer
> such pain, and that it is the common experience to find the difficulties
> that arise at any level are painful, and that this is one of the main
> reasons why anyone moves on. I mentioned no 'deformity', whatever that is.
Oh, "abnormally tainted" is not mentioning a deformity? Why deny what
you said?
> "and 3) that as a result of our lowly station we can't possible "care" as
> much as you and the others who "want the world to be a better place.""
>
> Did I say that? My assumption, again drawing on Wilber, is that people at
> all levels want the world to be a better place, but how that is interpreted
> is a consequence of the level the person is at. What I was saying at the
> end of my post was that the reason discussion and debate such as occurs in
> this forum is to be valued is because it can help each of us work on
> ourselves, and this occurs when we get in touch with what we really care
> about. Pirsig said it. I just happen to like what he says, and quite
> frankly, I can't think of any other reason why I would continue in debates
> such as these if it was not the case.
Yes or no. Do I, Roger and others who "defend" the U.S. "care" as
much as you? Do we also want to make the world a better place as
much as you?
> "long and thinly disguised ad hominem attack."
>
> Really!
Yes, really. Instead of trying to disprove the truth of Roger's assertions
you attacked his personal character by clearly implying that he was
less "developed" and less "caring" than those like yourself who get
"bemused or angry" at statements defending the U.S.
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 - 16:01:59 BST