From: pacodegallo@attbi.com
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 13:55:34 BST
Hi Dave
DMB:
That's a contest between social static
quality and intellectual static quality.
Oh, you just don't get it. Nevermind. I'm giving up on
you.
PACO:
No Dave, now is exactly when you need to persevere and
reach for that breakthrough... You can get it. Stick
with me here. To do so though, you need to rise up to
the level of the expectations of this forum.
First, when you make up assumptions that are repeatedly
contradicted (by both me and you)you need to either
correct the assumptions or explain the
inconsistencies. Second, when your intellectual house
of cards starts crumbling, you should face it head on
and look for a new construct. Don't run off from the
discussion.
Please take the issue head on and reply to my post.
Perhaps I am the one that is wrong here. We can only
know by addressing it. Do not fall for that
postmodern, anti-intellectual discussion is futile
crap. (If you want to make your position absolutely
assinine though, you could, I suppose, say "my position
is intellectual and rational and therefore superior
and yours isn't and if you disagree it is because of
the futility of rationality.)
So, please answer my questions on liberals just as I
answered (agreeing with you) yours on conservatives.
Also address all the other points that contradict your
thesis. Absent the ability to rise to these
challenges, your argument is nothing but rhetoric.
And, to quote Steely Dan, "Hot licks and rhetoric don't
count much for nothin'."
Later,
Paco
> Hi Sam and Dave and gang
>
>
> DMB says:
> 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.
>
> PACO:
> We ARE discussing political patterns, so I fail to see
> that this observation is as inciteful as you seem to
> imply. Economic and social equality -- liberal
> favorites -- are social too. The whole big C little c
> thing is indeed a bit confusing. Both the C and the L
> words -- even if focused on political ideology -- have
> multiple definitions that differ by society and time.
> They also do not correlate all that well with the
> official political parties of the US or GB.
>
> 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.
>
> PACO:
> Haven't you been making exclusive (or near exclusive)
> claims about values? Why the double standard?
>
> But back on point, the proofing of ideas is EXACTLY the
> potential downside to modern Liberalism. It has tons of
> ideas on how to achieve equality, health care,
> environmental quality, peace, social safety nets,
> better education, lower prices, etc. The problem is
> that these ideas often backfire and achieve unexpected
> results. Frequently, liberal solutions have led to the
> opposite result intended (increased crime , worse
> control over one's retirement, higher prices and
> shortages, poverty, family breakdown, socialism, etc).
> This weakness is further exascerbated by the liberal
> tendency to judge on intentions rather than results and
> by its current daliance with anti-rational post-modern
> philosophy and cultural relativism.
>
> Alone, Conservatism and Liberalism are are both
> suboptimal. At their worst, one is statically latched,
> the other dynamically out of control. It is the
> combination of the two that leads to a healthy
> society. Sq and DQ. One preserves what works, the
> other tries new things. Each party controls or limits
> the excesses of its opposite. Failure to achieve this
> balance leads to Cuba on one side and Iran on the
> other. Marxism was the greatest liberal mistake of the
> last century, causing the deaths and impoverishment of
> untold millions. Iran on the other hand represents a
> fundamentalist, conservative country that not only
> hasn't entered modernity, it has actually moved
> backward over the past 30 years.
>
> DMB:
> 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?
>
> PACO:
> Since when have Manhattan divorce lawyers been classic
> conservatives? This is as silly as saying that Jamie
> the pimp is your classic liberal.
>
> 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.
>
> PACO:
> And liberalism has come a long way from Marxism, but
> the fringe element is still fond of the idea.
>
> DMB:
> 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.
>
> PACO:
>
> Good points all, but when are you going to take your
> own advice? Your caricature of conservatism was also
> unfair, as if only liberals have intellectual
> capacity. Look back at some of your word choice on
> conservatives.
>
> 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.)
>
> PACO:
> How is it illogical? You already agreed with me on 4 or
> 5 intellectual values that are part of mainstream
> conservatism last week. The static/Dynamic model
> EXACTLY matches the MOQ. As for matching real people
> or events, it kind of depends upon how we define said
> people and events doesn't it? Rigel is a bad example
> (being not real and all). Could you provide
> substantiation that it doesn't match real world (or
> refute what I suggested if you think Marxism or
> lifetime entitlement to welfare etc. were such grand
> ideas)
>
> 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.
>
> PACO:
> As a non-conservative I both reject your analogy and
> suggest that it is a cheap and logically-bankrupt
> trick. You are trying to establish what Karl Popper
> calls "reinforced dogmatism" that cannot be disagreed
> with in the definition of the issue. This is a CLASSIC
> example of the anti-intellectualism in such ideas as
> Hegelianism, Marxism and some religions. I guess
> according to your definition, you are a conservative
> (joke).
>
> DMB:
> 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,
>
> 1) who was behind McCarthyism? Conservative extremists
>
> 2) Who sought to
> restrict artistic expression and political dissent in
> the name of security? Not aware of the former, but the
> latter has been attempted by extremists in both parties
> (PC speech is the liberal version)
>
> 3)Who voted against the civil rights act? Conservative
> democrats primarily
>
> 4) Who sank the Equal rights amendment? Conservatives.
>
> 5) Who hates the American Civil Liberties Union?
> Conservatives.
>
> 6) Who support[ed] right-wing military coups in foriegn
> countries [during the cold war]? 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.
>
>
> BUT, YOU FORGOT A FEW QUESTIONS:
>
> 7) Who supported a corrupt N. Vietnamese government
> that violently conquored those to the South, killing
> more people in the establishment of the totalitarian
> state than occured during the entire war, and leading
> to the impoverishment of a generation? Extreme
> Liberals.
>
> 8) Who blames the US for 9/11 and prefers theocratic,
> anti-feminist, homophobic totalitarian governments over
> armed liberation? Extreme liberals
>
> 9) Who supports nationalizing vast swaths of free
> enterprise industry and freezing prices? Liberals (and
> Nixon)
>
> 10) Who supports the restriction of of property rights
> to protect snail darters? Liberals
>
> 11) Who wants to restrict freedom of choice on health
> care (by adding fringe coverages and/or socializing
> it)? Liberals
>
> 12) Who is trying to indoctrinate children that Western
> Society is founded on the principle of oppression,
> rather than on freedom and rightful liberty? Extreme
> liberals
>
> 13) Who stood behind Marxism as it impoverished
> generations and led to some of the worst attrocities of
> the century? Liberals
>
> Do you see my point? You are presenting half the
> story. You have this odd, extremist view of all-that-
> is-liberal is intellectual and good and all-that-is-
> conservative is backward and stupid and power-focused
> and evil. The truth is that either version, if taken
> to an extreme is of very low quality. It is the
> interplay of the two that creates quality.
>
> but I could be wrong,
>
> Paco
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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