drose Bob Mary and everyone:
I'll try to disagree without hostility or malice. Honest. And in a
cyber-place like this disagreement is more fun and more productive. So
please take no offense.
Mary, maybe we could agree that education should be the central
organizing principle in our society. I'd be happy to see the same amount
of energy and resources go to education as now goes to the defense
budget. But I wouldn't want education to be based on anything like a
military model. As it should be, the military is extremely
authoritarian. Such a model is not fit to educate the citizens of a
democracy.
Education should be our central focus for reasons that are more
important than, but it would also save lots of money in the long run.
And I don't think home schooling or private schools are the answer
either, although there is nothing wrong with such approches. But such
piecemeal solutions only contribute to stratification in the larger
society, they can be downright isolating for the students. Private
schooling too often leads to sectarian indoctrination rather than real
education. I think that is what Gibran's "On Children" is getting at. I
think he is saying we ought to teach our children HOW to think, not WHAT
to think.
drose, I really don't know what you're silently giggling about. A post
is a terrible thing to waste. I'd love to talk politics with you, but
have no idea what you're getting at. Your thoughts culled randomly were
nothing more than tired old platitudes we've all heard many times
before. How about some original thoughts, or at least some meaningful
commentary on the quotes ? The title of your biography ought to be "The
lazy Philosopher".
As to the Heinlein quote, don't you think that "loyalty" and "duty" are
social level values and not really ideas per se? Heinlein says they are
concepts and the highest achievements of the human mind. I'd agree that
society suffers for the lack of loyalty and duty, but the mind's
greatest concept? I think many conservatives confuse social values with
ideas. I mean folks like Bill Bennnet, Bill Buckly and Pat Robertson. If
Pirsig is correct, confusion of the two levels is bound to be a
disaster.
(Heinlein was a NAZI sympathizer, and wrote some real ugly stuff. Did
you ever see the movie based on his book "Starship Troopers"? The main
message there is that violence in the supreme authority, that might is
right. It was even filmed in the style of NAZI propaganda films. Its
still the only R rated movie with a toy tie in for kids. Creepy, huh?)
I'm tempted to rebut your P.J. O'Rourke quote with some sassy Erma
Bombeck zingers. They're about the same caliber as political thinkers.
And a Texas business man? Dude, your sources are weak and your opponents
are straw men, fictions created by conservatives. No liberal I've ever
met or heard of is in favor of banning all guns or wants the government
to have more power over you and I. Drose, don't be fooled. To be
anti-government in a democracy is to be anti-democratic.
The one thing Nazis and Commies had in common is a hatered for
liberalism and democracy. Hitler's and Stalin's thugs often joined
forces to bash in the heads of democratic socialists. Hitler liked to
say, "The only good socialist is a National Socialist", only he said it
in german with murder in his eyes. Everyone likes to forget that
Germany's democratic socialist were the first victims to be herded off
into concentration camps.
Bob. Oh my god. Your posts are not only anti-democratic they are also
anti-intellectual. Very dangerous combination. Intellectuals were not
far behind the democratic forces in their march into Hilter's death
factories. Sowell's "annointed" ones and Hayek's "fatal conceit" are
both just fancy ways of saying they don't like the way intelligent
people make them feel. Its anti-intellectualism in the most carefully
couched terms, but it still smacks of the envy and resentment you assign
to liberals.
Intellectuals don't run society all by themselves. They couldn't even if
they tried and that's not the way things have been arranged. Our
representative democracy honors the social level values through the
voting booth and countless groups and associations. The people decide
what will be done and our elected officials are charged with the task of
getting it done in an intelligent way. Voting and lobbying and
protesting and all that kind of activity is supposed to reflect the
social values that will inform our choices and choose directions, but
then the intellectual level takes over to formulate specific laws and
policies, which are at the intellectual level. Its not perfect, but it
works.
Liberals are self deceptive? That's a generalization so broad as to be
meaningless. You can understand why an intellectual liberal might be
offended at your hostility toward intellectuals and liberals. But I'm
not too hurt because the demons you paint to hate do not really exist.
Self deception is sheer human folly and knows no ideological bounds.
Anyone is capable of self deception, regardless of the content of that
deception. To assign that, or any human flaw, to one group and not the
other is just plain dumb.
How about projection? That's probably one of the most common forms of
self
deception. You seem to assign bad qualities and motives to those who
disagree with your politics and then hate them for the assigned qualites
and not the disagreements. But if one has a coherent argument there is
no need to turn the opponent into a monster. It's a tactic of dismissal
too, as in "you're just saying that because your tired or crabby". Its a
way of discounting an argument without really adressing it. It's
dishonest and extremely unhelpful.
Am I demonizing you or conservatism? No, but I am objecting to the
irrational demonization of liberalism. "Oh, what horrors have been
wrought by American liberals! Oh, I'm so opressed by the lowest tax rate
in the industial world! Oh, Bill Clinton has ruined the economy and our
military is a laughing stock!"
Peace and prosperity, baby! That's all we ever want from the government
and we have it. So what's to complain about? You want a revolution for
what? You don't want gubmit to be in charge of our morality do you? Do
you want to talk about Pirsig or just repeat a bunch of things Rush
Limbaugh says? It's not just that I disagree with your politics, its the
attempt to squeeze your partisan views into the MOQ, which is a case of
square pegs in round holes.
I don't relly expect to change your mind abut anything, I'm just begging
for some clarity, originality and intellectual honesty.
Hope that was civil enough. I tried.
David B.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:04 BST