> DMB says...
>But let me at least say that I think
> Pirsig and Wilber are essentially on the same page with respect to
> politics. They're both critical of almost everything for much of the same
> reasons. Pirsig talks about the mistake of SOM intellectuals to appreciate
> the social level and Wilber talks alot about the pre/trans fallacy. These
> seemingly unrelated objections are actually connected in lots of
> interesting ways. But with respect to your question, I'd say they both seek
> a way to integrate the lower levels into the higher ones. You know,
> transcend AND include them. In this sense, they both offer something like a
> reconciliation between today's conservatism and liberalism. They both seek
> to preserve what has been gained in the past and are both therefore more
> respectful of tradition than your standard liberal intelllectuals. But it
> would be wrong to claim that either of them is making a case for
> conservatism. In fact, they are both very harsh on reactionaries,
> fundamentalists and authoritarians of all stripes.
It would also be wrong to claim that either of them is making a case for
liberalism as defined by the current democratic party. In fact, they are
both very harsh on Marxists, statists and collectivists of all stripes.
> DMB...
> Yea, I bet you like those passages best and ignore the rest. Like I said
> before, I think your political prejudices distort your understanding of the
> MOQ and I suppose it effects your take on Wilber too.
Of course, you have no political prejudices and are able to look at all
philosophical positions with complete, unaldulterated objectivity.
To put Wilber's views on liberalism in perspective, you may want to
consider the following from his book, "A Theory of Everything."
"And liberalism, arising directly in the midst of this scientific
materialism, swallowed its worldview hook, line and sinker. In other
words, LIBERALISM BECAME THE POLITICAL CHAMPION OF
FLATLAND . . . Thus, liberal political theory was coming from a higher
level of development, but a development that was caught in
pathological flatland. Put bluntly, liberalism was a sick version of a
higher level." pp. 86, 87 (emphasis the author's)
Pirsig makes a similar point from another viewpoint about socialism--
intellectually at a higher level than society but "sick" due to it's
adherence to a subject-object metaphysics that rejects any moral
realities.
> Platt, I think you'll never understand political philosophy properly as
> long as you equate liberalism with tyranny. In spite of the demonization of
> liberalism by anti-intellectuals and reactionaries, liberalism's aim is
> individual freedom, which is the same thing you wish for. Or so you say.
> That's why both Wilber and Pirsig can talk about liberal progress as an
> expansion of freedom. That's why Wilber mentions the abolition of slavery
> and feminism both as progressive movements. Ghandi ain't Stalin.
If we both stick to protection and expansion of individual freedom as
the proper role and aim of government, we have no quarrel. Despite
your attempts to demonize conservatives, individual freedom is at the
heart of our political belief. To lift government from the backs of the
productive members of society by reducing taxes would indeed by a
progressive movement, as JFK recognized.
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 - 16:02:12 BST