From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 22:36:11 BST
Ooops. Sent the reply before it was done. Here's the rest...
PACO:
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.
NEW DMB:
How often these ideas backfire is very debateable. The intellectual and
liberal traditon has improved the world in countless ways in spite of the
mistakes. Further, the MOQ IS a post-rational and post-modern philosophy and
the MOQ says such things are "absolutely morally superior" to pre-rational,
pre-modern values.
PACO:
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.
NEW DMB:
Wrong. The distinction between C and L does not correlate to the
static/Dynamic split. That balance occurs within levels. Social values can
be compared to other social values to determine which is more static. The
same goes within the intellectual level. But in a conflict between social
static patterns and intellectual static patterns there is no contest. It
would be immoral to choose a social level value over an intellectual level
pattern. But its also true that social level patterns are less dynamic than
the intellectual level because its closer to DQ. Marxism is not a deadly
idea, it only became so in the reactionary hands of Stalin and Mao. As I
already explained to you, at great length, Both nations have a long history
of authoritarianism and they are both still struggling to overcome that
legacy. Ever notice that Pirsig does NOT cite them as examples of
intellectual values?
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.
New DMB: From page 162 of Lila "Rigel was just pushing a narrow
tradition-bound socio-biological code of morals which it was certain he did
not understand." And from page 162, "Like the stuff Rigel was throwing at
him this morning, the old victorian morality." There are lots of clues
throughout the book, but this should be more than enough to make you see
that Rigel is a Conservative and is dominated by social level values. If
not, you are truely hopeless. Perhaps Pirsig created him as a Divorce
attorney precisely because it reflects his concerns with marriage, which is
a social level converntion. The fact that he helps people dissolve marriages
and had an affair with Lila, while he also condemns Lila's destructive
behavior only shows the inconsistent and hypocritical nature of social level
views. I can't seem to find the quote where Pirsig describes liberals as
pimps. If you can find it, I just might become one.
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.
NEW DMB:
It's not like I'm just throwing insults around. Just like the case of Rigel,
you're ignoring what Pirsig says and the quotes I've posted. He describes
our recent political conflicts as a battle of levels, with intellectuals on
one side and anti-intellectuals on the other. I honestly don't see how you
can miss this huge theme. It runs throughout the book.
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).
NEW DMB:
According to the test scores at the political compass, you are a
Conservative. You express Conservative ideas and complain about liberalism
all the time. So your denial strikes me as pretty odd. It seems you reject
my analogy (you mean my point, there is no analogy in that comment.) a
little too much, as if you were persoanlly offended. But its not about YOU,
Paco. Its just a MOQ principle; that levels can't see beyond themselves. I
don't know what to say about the Popper/Hegel thing because it makes no
sense to me.
I've got some stuff to do for a while, but I'll tackle the rest later.
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 - 10:37:57 GMT