From: pacodegallo@attbi.com
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 21:50:14 BST
TO: Davis, Platt and Sam
DMB:
The unfair
implication that I wass objecting to was that liberals
don't mind if
society is destroyed or if unproven ideas are widely
distributed. Nobody
wants that.
PACO:
Of course people tend to care. Some people are just
convinced their ideas are right, regardless of how much
evidence contradicts it. This is true on both sides of
the ideological fence. Liberals push new ideas --
supported heavily by those that will gain socially from
the new idea -- and conservatives tend to resist ideas
or push 'systemic' solutions rather than grand
centralized visions. (and yes, conservatives are
heavily supported by those currently helped by the
established social power structure).
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.
PACO:
And conservativism has preserved many of these that
worked and presented many systemic solutions (and
mistakes) of their own. (You already conceded this
point).
DMB:
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:
And it TOTALLY rejects the anti-rational and cultural
relavent dalliances that extreme liberal adherents of
post modernism have taken. Both Pirsig and Wilber
denigrate the disfunctional versions of extreme
conservativism and liberalism.
Ol' 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.
DMB:
Wrong. The distinction between C and L does not
correlate to the
static/Dynamic split.
PACO:
Why, because you said so? Your assumption depends
completely upon proving that conservatives are
incapable of grasping intellectual values, or are too
selfish or dishonest to honor them. This assumption is
blatantly false (in fact it borders on megalomaniacal
self delusion).
Both ideologies are heavily influenced by social and
economic power struggles. We agree on those of
conservatives, but you seem to believe that such
liberal traditions as income redistribution, Union
protectionism from imports, and defense of lawsuit
abuse are some kind of intellectual concepts. Both
ideologies are heavily influenced by social value
struggles between selfish individuals. Both are
supported by grand theories and by kind and benevolent
folks too. Neither is all good or all bad and we need
both.
DMB:
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.
PACO:
GOOD intellectual values. Not BAD intellectual
values. A good intellectual value corrects and
improves bad social values and preserves and advances
good social values. Liberalism is more dynamic and
creative, conservativism more practical and empirical
and stable. As you said yourself, the static and
dynamic "balance occurs within the levels." In
politics, it is the complex interplay between these
parties with their associated ideologies. Give it up
Dave.
DMB:
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,
PACO:
Ideas aren't deadly until they are implemented. I hate
to break the news to you David, but Marxism was one of
the most inane ideas ever concocted. It was tried
hundreds of times in countless numbers of ways across
the majority of humanity with one consistant outcome --
abject poverty, suppresion of social and intellectual
quality and often-times massive extermination of the
populous. Your intellectual fascination and sympathy
with the "theory" reflects similar weaknesses in your
logical processes. Like Marx, you pull wacky
assumptions out of your "you know what" and then
adamantly try to pervert the world to match your
vision. Bad ideas kill, David. Please admit that it
is a terrible idea. It isn't too late!
BTW, Marx was of course not only an intellectual, but
also a Victorian and in many ways a social
conservative. See how that works into your "theory".
Old DMB:
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?
Ol' 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: 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
PACO:
In other words, YOU, and ONLY YOU are citing that
Manhattan divorce lawyers with Victorian moral
standards are CLASSIC AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICANS. I have no beef with Pirsig's
characterization. I do reject your caricature. Admit
the absurdity and be done with it -- your
rationalization is pathetic (it is now "classic" in
its "inconsistency"?) [This is why chatting with you
is so fascinating -- I just try to figure out how your
mind works]
Ol' PACO:
Your caricature of conservatism was also
unfair, as if only liberals have intellectual
capacity.
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.
PACO:
I am not arguing with the book, I am arguing with your
interpretation. I have repeated ad nauseum that I agree
that liberal leadership has been more prone to some
intellectual values than conservatives. I agree that
liberals often were the first to embrace both good and
bad ideas. Please acknowledge this.
Also, please note the strong intellectual defense of
some conservative values in Lila. Platt has supplied
the quotes. I can repeat them.
Ol' DMB:
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.
Ol' 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:
According to the test scores at the political compass,
you are a
Conservative.
PACO:
I was not. I was in the general middle (OK -- slightly
right) and toward libertarian (virtually all of your
absurdities of conservativism have been toward
authoritarianism). What conservatives do you know that
are Pro-choice, pro-gay, suspicious of fundamentalists
and Christian extremists, adamently against corporate
welfare and adamently for equal rights and social
safety nets? I am actually strongly Independent. I
would characterize myself as an intellectual who sees
value in both ideologies and dangers in extremists
(such as yourself).
DMB:
You express Conservative ideas and complain about
liberalism
all the time.
PACO:
Because there have been almost no right wing wackos in
this forum. Just left wing ones. The one or two right
wing extremists have been run out on a rail. (and
truth be told I have run several of the lefties off,
though not intentionally)
DMB:
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.
PACO:
This is hysterical. In one paragraph you state that:
1) lower levels can't understand higher ones (in the
process making the sloppy mistake of anthropomorphizing
values), and that
2) you can't understand logical fallacies, and that
3) I am beneath you due to MY sub-intellectual values.
OK Dave!
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:03 GMT