From: John Beasley (beasley@austarnet.com.au)
Date: Sun Oct 06 2002 - 11:31:14 BST
Hullo Roger (Alias Paco)
I don't object to your changing your name in the forum, though I find it
distracting and confusing, so long as you don't object to my retaining
whichever variant suits me. Fair?
Yeah, it was a strong judgment on your debate with David, but I have to say
I remain amazed by the way David's generally clear and concise arguments on
this and other points seem to spill like water off a duck's back and are
seemingly not even registered. Incorrogibility is perhaps too mild a word.
But I only referrred to it to illustrate something I do find of value in
Rorty, and not to attack you, though of course I see you as a card carrying
conservative. :-)
You invite me to respond to Sam's interesting post on conservatism.
Sam's definition is that "conservatism as a political philosophy is ...
about placing trust in institutions that have stood the test of time".
Institutions would appear to be primarily social level constructs, hence
this seems to confirm David's thesis.
Later he says "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 ... more rational than those currently prevailing".
Pretty clear to me. New, more rational, ideas are not to be trusted. Hardly
an openess to the dynamic quality to be found at the intellectual level.
He goes on "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".
In Pirsig's terms, this is waiting until a hundred years after the event to
pick the saviours from the degenerates. Sadly, if these conservatives are in
power, the idea will never get the chance to static latch, hence can never
meet their criteria. Again David's argument is offered fullsome support.
Finally, Sam says "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."
I get all mixed up with big C and little c conservatives, especially when
there are big C conservative parties around the world. I understand what Sam
is intending to say here, though, and accept his point that conservatives
are not incapable of accepting innovation. The use by the ultra right of
computer technology to promote their cause, especially in the US, is an
obvious example. Conservatives also appear to have a real penchant for the
latest hi-tech weaponry, wherever they live. They are not alone in that, I
suppose.
I must say that Sam's explanation of conservatism has only confirmed to me
the validity of David's argument, and in Pirsig's terms it becomes a less
moral attitude than liberalism, or whatever label one wishes to put on those
with greater openness to dynamic quality at the intellectual level. But
doesn't Pirsig say this anyway? What really interests me is what fuels the
caution, the cynicism, or even fear of new ideas that the conservative
betrays?
But you are already familiar with Wilber's take on all this, and I think he
puts his finger quite nicely on the key issues. Unlike David, who finds this
inability to connect sad, I see it as unavoidable, even if frustrating. I
guess we have reached an incorrigible gap in our final vocabularies, about
which nothing can be done.
Regards,
John B
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 - 10:37:54 GMT