Yellow Creek, Roger, Rob and y'all:
I've posted on this topic before. Looking at the impeachment trial thru
the MOQ levels seems like a useful exercise. Pirsig's descriptions of
the Zuni conflict, of the Victorians and his thoughts on Fascism are all
cases of social and intellectual values in conflict. The impeachment
trial seems to me another such case.
There's bound to be disagreements based on what political views each of
us brings to the topic. I'll confess right up front that I did not vote
for the President. I'd call myself something like a libertarian
socialist. I know it seems contradictory. Basically, I think that social
and intellectual values each have their place and the purpose of
politics is to sort that out and guard what works best. And I know it
sounds corny, but I just love the U.S. constitution. Both the document
itself and the form of government it proscribes is a stable structure
with flexibility and growth ability built right in. You could say the
constitution has a great balance of static and dynamic qualities.
If the inorganic level values play into this issue at all, I can't see
it. This may seem odd at first, but I dont think biological level values
have much to do with it either. When Lila and the author had sex Pirsig
described how those values were millions and billions of years old and
how "he" just about disappeared as they asserted themselves. There is no
doubt Clinton experienced the same take-over. Thats not really what is
at issue. In fact the intimate acts are about the only thing all sides
agree on. Clinton doesn't try to justify his behavior by
intellectualizing or rationalizing that its ok to cheat on your wife. He
does assert a right to privacy and that is an intellectual value.
Privacy is not only a legal concept, but was discussed during the
enlightenment in terms of its political and philosophical implications.
It was deemed important enough to the framers of the constitution, who
were all familiar with said discussions, to included as a basic right of
every citizen. The right to privacy is expressed in several of the first
ten amendments, the bill of rights.
Privacy rights are the reason Linda Tripp's recordings were illegal. Law
enforcement is required to convince a judge that other's rights are at
risk. Only then can the cops legally violate the suspect's privacy
rights. Etc.
(Lila is used to demonstate the other levels too. Lila and her pimp sort
of represent the biological values. She was an adequate mother
biologically, but not socially and intellectually. She was even a
prostitute, literally getting cash value for her biological services.
Rigel steps in with his Victorian moralizing, obviously and explicitly
said to represent the social level values. To him Lila has no value,
she's just an old whore. The author represents the intellectual level
values, with his slips of paper and concern for Lila's karma and sanity
over all else.)
I view the impeachment trial as a kind of ritual enactment of the entire
culture war. I don't mean that in any scientific sense, of course. You
can see it in all the players. On the one side is a bunch of
conservative rich white men who are questioning a loose young woman, an
intellectual jew and a rich, powerful black man. Clinton's friends and
lovers are the Klan's worst nightmare. That's why the right hate him so
much. I know the House prosecutors aren't exactly KKK, but the main
players are all highly suspect. Bob Barr has given speeches to White
supremacist groups, Trent Lott writes atricles for the newsletter of a
Mississippi supremacist group, the seat vacated by Livingston is now
sought by David Duke. Even the Chief Justice, who presides over the
trial, is a former segregationist and fought civil rights legislation
when he was a young law clerk. They all think Clinton is the embodiment
of the free love, pot smoking, draft dodgeing, sixties hippie. Clinton
says his ONLY enemy is "religious right-wing fundamentalism" and thinks
of himself as an intellectual. (Check out the article about Clinton by
Gabriel Garcia Marquez (sp?) in salon magazine. Its on-line and easy to
find. You'll be amazed. )
The style of rhetoric they use in the proceedings reveals lots of social
level values. Henry Hyde actually invoked the ten commandments and magna
carta, saying that 5,000 years of civilization rode on the outcome of
the trial. He and the other House prosecutors like to use phrases like
"historic duty" and "sacred honor". I believe they have all invoked the
name of "God". They've claimed all the war dead for their cause too.
Not too legal or intellectual if you ask me. Oh, and don't forget about
the poor innocent children who will be effected. The whole thrust of
their language reveals what a bunch of "Rigels" they are, a bunch of
Victorian moralizers.
So intellectual level values say that Clinton's privacy rights are at
issue. (I won't get into what is constitutionally impeachable and what
isn't. This is already too long.) The social level values say that
sexual morality and honesty are at issue.
Naturally both levels have real value and quality, but the levels come
into conflict nevertheless. The thing is in the resolution of that
conflict. Do be "moral" in dealing with the conflicts, Pirsig gives us
the moral codes. I believe there are five. One between each of the
levels that says the higher level has to win and the fifth says that
anything that prohibits evolution at any level is immoral. Anything that
stands in the way of the migration toward DQ is immoral. Oppression is
evil even on a cosmological scale. Freedom is the moral priciple of the
entire universe.
It's no accident that Pirsig points to civil disobedience, Ghandi and
MLK as the good guys. Clearly he paints the NAZIs and Victorians as the
bad guys. Although we may have sympathy for the values they hold, the
"sin" is in asserting those values onto a higher level. It seems to me
the House prosecutors, ken Starr and their cohorts are trying to assert
morality where law belongs. The are asserting social values over
intellectual values. They are the bad guys.
Don't get me wrong, its also obvious that Clinton allowed biological
values assert themselves where he needed to assert some social values.
(Fidelity is more moral than sexual pleasure.) But its not much of a
crime compared to the bombs he dropped. If the House bad boys were
really interested in moral leadership and the rule of law, they'd
prosecute him for murder and terrorism.
david
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST