To John and Platt
>From Risky
JOHN:
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.
R:
Sorry John, but it is Wim and I that have been discussing the improvement of
societies for 7 months. I have not been defending one particular society in
this thread either. The ONLY reason I engaged David and defended one society
is that he gave a list of failures, mistakes, quotations and innuendos and
presented them as representative of said society and as the cause for certain
types of non-progress. The caricature, though true in some ways (as
caricatures usually are) was generally misleading in my opinion and it led
not toward solutions but away from them. I provided what I felt were more
balanced and complex solutions to him in a later post.
I agree with Platt that an intellectual debate on strengths and weaknesses in
societies needs to include defending or supporting those elements of society
that are perceived as strengths. I am not a flag-waving, right wing, hawk,
"america-love-it-or-leave-it" person. I only appear this way in some
people's caricatures of me, or in the context of occasionally being the only
voice against what I have seen as some extremely questionable intellectual
positions (take a careful look at the threads last weekend and you will even
see that I was in some cases arguing with two people saying that "America is
evil" who actually held opposite and contradictory reasons for this
conclusion.)
To be honest John, I see these simplistic, one-dimensional "America is Evil"
arguments as being intellectually vacuous in terms of solutions to the topic
of progress. YES, America has done evil things, and it must try to avoid
doing evil in the future. But that is not the HOLY GRAIL solution to the
issue of worldwide progress. We cannot oversimplify the issue at the expense
of considering other dimensions of progress.
JOHN:
One reason I continue in this forum is because I actually want to
explore and work on the cycle called myself (ZMM Ch 26), and I trust
that others are doing the same. But also I want the world to be a better
place. Pirsig says " I think that if we are going to reform the world
and make it a better place to live in, the way to do it is not with talk
about relationships of a political nature, which are inevitably
dualistic, full of subjects and objects and their relationships to one
another; or with programs full of things for other people to do ... The
place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and
hands, and then work outward from there."
RISKY:
I too "want the world to be a better place." That is why I have been
engaging in the discussion on Social Progress for 7 months. I also agree we
should start with ourselves. We shouldn't end there though.
JOHN:
I spoke of
"the pain implicit in Roger's words", not yours, and I said "I experience
this pain now". I went on to argue that the experience of pain is
characteristic of "any transition between levels". I see no evidence that
you are interested in change or are in transition. Roger may be. "Abnormally
tainted" is a term Roger used. They are not my words. And the pain I refer
to comes from awareness of the inadequacies of our positions, and the need
for change that follows.
R:
I felt no pain. The pain and defensiveness thing was made up by others to
attack my credibility. I am not going through any painful transitions
either, so there is no need for any GET WELL SOON cards.
Risky
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 - 16:02:00 BST