-----Original Message-----
From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org' <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 3:34 AM
Subject: MD Values within values
>Platt, Drose and y'all:
>
>Thanks to you both for your response. The impeachment trial is
>notoriously polarizing, and I'm glad nothing worse that head pounding
>has occured. :-)
>
>'ll keep the politics out of this as much as possible. I want to answer
>a couple of points and then I"ll move to another example of the levels
>in conflict.
>
>To call myself a libertarian socialist only seems like a confused
>contradiction. I may be wrong, but I'm not confused. The description I
>used is borrowed from Noam Chomsky. He is a Professor of Linguistics at
>Mass. Inst. of Technolgy and is considered one of the world's foremost
>experts on language, propaganda and ideology. He is a very radical guy
>and evokes alot of animosity, but even his critics will admit that he is
>brilliant. Guess what he calls himself with respect to politics? Yes,
>he's a libertarian socialist. I assure its a legitimate term.
>
>Both of you objected to my assertion that there are racists in the
>Republican party. I know its a very ugly thing, but it's true. This
>isn't really the place so I won't get into a bunch of history. But
>please believe that I don't say such things lightly. I don't make this
>stuff up. We had a fascist party here in the U.S. when Hilter was first
>coming to power. We recruited alot of Germans after the war, and not
>just the rocket scientists either. In short, this strain of fascism and
>older kinds of racism still exist in the country. I don't mean to
>suggest that the Republicans have a monopoly on this, but it's ideology
>makes it a much more likely candidate. It no accident that David Duke
>quit the Klan, got a nose job and ran as a Republican. Racism and
>fascism have had similar make-overs in an effort to look acceptable, but
>the change is only superficial.
>
> Oh, and I realize salon magazine isn't the most credible news source,
>but Gabriel Garcia Marquez is one of the greatest literary figures alive
>today. He is credible.
>
>The most obvious example of privacy rights in the constitution would be
>the fourth amendment. It provides for everyone to be free from
>unreasonable seaches. The language they used, "to be secure in their
>papers and effects" was a reference to a famous case in England. I
>forget the particulars, but a public figure was involved in scandal
>after his "papers and effects" were stolen from his home. He was having
>an affair or was gay or something like that. Anyway the big debate in
>the fallout of that 18th century sex scandal was a debate on the nature
>of power and privacy. The founders had this event in mind at the time.
>Don't you count privacy as one of those inalienable rights? I really
>thought everybody did.
>
>The amendment process itself is an example of the constitution's built
>in dynamism. The proceedure of changing the constitution is built into
>it's static structure. We could even use the amendment proceedure to
>change the amendment proceedure! Without the amendment provision, we'd
>still have slavery, women couldn't vote and we'd have no Bill of Rights.
>
>Just one more point on the trial. Ken Starr did have to get the Attorney
>General's permission to investigate Lewinsky. But Ken Starr's office is
>presently under investigation for decieveing Janet Reno in order to get
>that permission. The allegations are that his office was in contact with
>the Jones Lawyers and already working on the case before permission was
>granted. (Politically, it would have been very tough for Reno to deny
>him permission.) He has been accused of other misdeeds too. He's been
>accused of obstruction of justice in a suit against General Motors. It
>seems that his respect for the rule of law vanishes with respect to his
>own conduct. I'm fond of saying that Whitewater is alot like Watergate.
>It both cases Republicans abused the institutions of government in an
>attempt to destroy their political enemies.
>
>************************************************************************
>************************
>OK. HERE ARE SOME NEW THOUGHTS.
>ISN'T HITLER EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE MONSTER ?
>I read a book review in the Atlantic Monthly yesterday. A biographer
>deconstructs Hitler and tries to explain his evil through the use of
>great literary characters. I know it sounds strange. He compares Hitler
>with fictional people as a form of analysis!
>
>At first it seemed like a useless exercise. Like a project for some
>flunky graduate student who'd tripped a few too many times. But the
>biographer only uses figures from the major classics, like Paradise
>Lost. And if you accept the "Masks of God" premise, the biographer's
>approach starts to make more sense. Remember? Pirsig mentions the Joseph
>Campbell book near the end, saying he only wanted to read it cause of
>what he'd heard. Pirsig said that if you really wanted to understand a
>culture you had to look at its gods, which reflect the values. The gods
>will tell you what a culture values. Campbell's "masks of god" view
>also says that myths, legends, folk tales, dreams and even great
>literary characters also reflect these cultural values. So the
>biographer's method could actually tell us alot about the values held by
>Hitler? Is the biographer onto something that can help us sort out the
>social and intellectual level values? Didn't Pirsig say history was
>really biography?
>Didn't he say that every individual is a culture of one. I'd really love
>to hear some thoughts from you on this, especially if you're JC fan. I'm
>just sort of stringing the ideas out there and letting you see the
>connections. Am I making sense?
>
>I was thinking about the words "Ceaser", "Kaiser" and "Czar". Obviously,
>they are different inflections of the same word. There must be some kind
>of underlying cultural value that supports such a figure. Even the U.S.
>Presidency is a watered down version of this same warrior king
>celebrated in ancient Rome. Isn't this an example of a particular social
>level value persisting through time? The social level demands unity and
>authority? The intellectual level exists on top of the more primary
>underlying form and gives it shape and meaning. The various inflections
>given to the underlying social values are what make one culture
>different than another. It all just depends on a given society's other
>values and their own context in place and time. The intellectual level
>that is laid over top may even make the underlying form unrecognizable
>to "others" who are not a part of that culture. But all intellectual
>patterns of value do is supply the social level values with an "accent".
>It's all a matter of style. A different set of clothes on the same
>Ceaser.
>
>David
>
>
>
>MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
David,
I found the end of your last response interesting. I didn't like the politics part, but the end was most fascinating. I am not wanting to talk about politics because I see a lot of people twisting things around to support their own political views. In other words-you can intellectualize anything if you want. This doesn't mean that the viewpoint that you intellectualize is correct. For instance, I could intellectualize killing someone like this; Well this person is competing for my job, and if I kill him I will eliminate the competition. You see I have intellectualized killing someone, but you would have to agree that this is not a viewpoint with high quality.
Now, about the Ceaser stuff. This probably does represent a cultural view. For instance, our President is nothing more but a king (like in Europe) disguised by the name of a President. However, when the Americans set up our system they thought that they were doing something new. However, they did nothing but borrow from their European contemporaries. I think that people are definitely influenced by their culture, and probably can't escape it even if they try. The Ceaser attitude can probably be traced back to the ancient Greeks just like a lot of other western Ideals. The Greeks I believe had in their time an "Aristocracy" which means that the "best rule." How ironic that this idea is still with us until this day, but in our democracy we believe that the best rule, without having to have any qualifications. Plato was for an Aristocratic democracy which meant that there would be some equalness, but only the Truly qualified should rule. Namely Philosopher Kings. Not just any guy who can sway votes h
is way, like our present day system. My point is that a person's or a society's cultural ideas can almost always be traced back to a source, and until people Think for themselves they will always be blinded by false ideas. Just like Pirsig was talking about when he mentioned the Mythos over Logos argument.
Best Regards,
Jason Nelson
>
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