From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 06 2002 - 01:40:23 BST
Sam and all:
SAM said:
As I understand it, conservatism as a political philosophy is not primarily
about preserving social patterns come what may; rather it is about placing
trust in institutions that have stood the test of time (ie that have
demonstrated the capacity to "static latch" and thereby preserve something
of value).
DMB says:
Hmmm. A very important thing to see here is that "institutions that have
stood the test of time" ARE social values. Traditionally, the church, the
army, and the ecomony are the favorites of Conservatives precisely because
modernity (intellect) has had an enormous impact on these institutions.
Sam goes on:
To explain further: let us distinguish between conservative (small 'c') and
Conservative (capital 'C') and allow, for the sake of argument, that the
former represents an attitude which seeks to preserve social level values
from all comers, either above or below the social level. The Conservative
attitude differs from this, in the following way.
DMB says:
No way. You and I are both bound by the rules of english. The word with a
small 'c' means something like "cautious", "modest" or "careful" as in a
conservative estimate or conservative dress. Conservative with a big "C" is
one who adheres to Conservatism, which is a political ideology and the topic
of our conversation.
Sam continues:
Fundamental to the Conservative attitude is a distrust of ideology; more
broadly, it is a distrust of new ideas, especially those that are advanced
as being either more rational than those currently prevailing, or as more
technologically or bureacratically efficient than those currently
prevailing.
DMB says:
Hmmm. Mistrust of ideologies and new ideas. I'd say that's pretty much the
definition of "anti-intellectual". I guess this talk about attitudes (rather
than ideas.) is only consistent.
SAM goes on:
The Conservative attitude does not rule out the acceptance of new ideas per
se, rather it suggests that new ideas need to prove their worth before being
accepted and widely distributed. In MoQ terms you could say that a
Conservative attitude places a higher barrier to entry around the social
level, and seeks to allow only those intellectual level innovations that
have demonstrated the ability to static latch improvements in a way that
preserves social value - including the value of the ongoing society as
presently constituted. As such, Conservatism is itself an intellectual level
ideology, and not necessarily any more or less intelligent than the
alternatives.
DMB says:
Are you trying to imply that liberals and intellectuals are in favor of
accepting unproven ideas, of widely distributing unproven new ideas? That
they don't see "the value of the ongoing society"? No way. Liberals want all
that too. And more besides. In any case, I don't think its fair to make
exclusive claims about these values. You talking about little more than
caution, which is a widely held human trait. Then, after listing all the
reasons why Conservatives "preserve social value" you leap to the conclusion
that Conservatism is "an intellectual level ideology". This doesn't add up.
And it contradicts so much of what Pirsig says. Rigel. Think of Rigel. He's
a classic American Conservative. He's not some gun-nut neo-nazi militia guy.
He's just a Republican. What's so hard to get about Rigel?
Sam said:
I take this understanding of Conservatism as deriving largely from Edmund
Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution. British society was profoundly
shocked by that regicide and terror, undertaken in the name of some good
ideas (Liberty, Equality and Fraternity), and Conservatism is conditioned by
that experience. I would argue that this represents 'mainstream'
Conservatism in the UK.
DMB says:
Oh, well there's your problem. Conservatism has come a long way since the
reign of terror, although they're still very fond of mentioning it. But
seriously, I thought the conversation began as an analysis of the Bush
Administration and so was about contemporary Conservatism. And its fine to
trace the roots of today's Conservatism, but I think your breif description
has unsound and unfair characterizations. It seems to imply that only
Conservatives were horrified at the bloodshed, as if only Conservatives have
basic human decency. Also, Conservatives at the time didn't just object to
violence, they also opposed those three famous ideas, not least of all
because those ideas would cost them in both power and wealth.
Sam concludes:
So: conservative and Conservative are not the same. The latter is an
intellectual level filter designed to preserve social level quality from
dangerous innovations, not a social level reaction against all innovations
whatever their source.
DMB says:
I'm glad you re-stated this. It deserves re-beating. Your definition of
Conservatism as an intellectual level social preserver is illogical, defies
Pirsig's depictions, doesn't match people or events in the real world and is
otherwise bogus. Sorry, friend. I don't buy it. Wouldn't even take it for
free. (This is a criticism, not an insult. Please take it as an intellectual
challenge.)
DMB muses on the topic:
I think liberal intellectuals can understand Conservatives because you can't
have any ideas without social values first. So liberal intellectuals have
what Conservatives have, but they also have something more. They have
something additional that Conservatives tend to mistrust. And for the same
reason, Conservatives really don't trust or understand Liberalism.
Discussions about the MOQ are not immune to this problem.
Most of what passes for issues worthy of political debate, abortion and gun
control for example, is little more than a distraction. Rights and freedom.
That's where the action is. Ask yourself how Conservatives and Liberals come
down on those issues and you really start to see the line between social and
intellecual values.
Ask yourself, who was behind McCarthyism? Conservatives. Who sought to
restrict artistic expression and political dissent in the name of security?
Conservatives. Who voted against the civil rights act? Conservatives. Who
sank the Equal rights amendment? Conservatives. Who hates the American Civil
Liberties Union? Conservatives. Who supports right-wing military coups in
foriegn countries? Conservatives. In the real world, the Conservatives have
a weak record on freedoms and rights. They talk about it alot, but they
don't really get it. Either that or they're monstorously hypocritical.
Being a Conservative in Victorian times was only normal. In the 21st century
its anacronistic, regressive, and reactionary. Such movements are par for
the course during any period of rapid change, but this is a time of really
big and very rapid changes, so the reaction is that much more intense too.
These static, backward movements serve a purpose in the process, but in the
end the problems with the intellectual level (SOM and such) will have to be
worked out on the intellectual level. Such things are literally beyond the
view of social level values and can never be solved there.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT