> -----Original Message-----
> From: Platt Holden [SMTP:pholden5@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 12:08 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Looking out for one another
>
> DMB responds to Platt's gracious attempts to de-Scroogify himself... I
> have deleted some paragraphs, but the remaining Platt quotes are
> unaltered.
>
> PH said,
> I also used "caring" to mean "blind devotion to a cause" in the examples
> of
> Nazi Germany and the Inquisition.
>
> DMB says,
> I understand that you used the word that way. But that simply isn't what
> the word means. Your usage was way too inventive. Language is a common
> thing. If we go around creating new meanings for words, communication will
> become inpossible. Let's just stick to the common language. What your'e
> rightly complaining about is called zealotry or fanaticism, not caring.
>
> Platt said,
> David L. asked for my take on love and the MoQ and all I can do is point
> to
> the ways Pirsig uses love in Lila -- love of sex, love of country, love of
>
> celebrity, love of simplicity, love of Indians (Dusenberry), love of his
> book, etc.
>
> DMB says,
> Here you're addressing a different david, but I didn't delete it because
> your answer to him sound very much like my Christmas post. And yet in the
> summary of this very post you condemned my post and lump it in with other
> "utopian ideologies"? It seems that the idea is an "absolutist approch"
> only when I say it and not when you say the same thing. This is totally
> unfair to me, to the rest of the forum's partciipants and it is not fair
> to Pirsig's ideas. Whistles are blowing and there are flags down all over
> the field. If there were coaches, they'd call a time-out. (Drama for
> humorous effect only. I don't really feel roughed up.)
>
> Platt said,
> What really prompted my anti-caring post was an abiding fear of persons of
>
> any persuasion who justify their moral pronouncements as being "for the
> good of humanity." As historian Robert Conquest says in his new book,
> "Reflections on the Ravaged Century:"
> "The revolutionary believed it to be in the nature of things that
> dictatorship
> and terror are needed if the good of humanity is to be served, just as the
>
> Aztec priests believed themselves to be entirely justified in ripping the
> hearts
> out of thousands of victims, since had they not done so, the sun would
> have
> gone out, a far worse catastrophe for mankind. In either case, the means
> are
> acceptable, being inevitable that is, if the theory is correct."
>
> DMB says,
> Ah, ha! You've confessed to a previously un-stated assumption. And I
> understand the view point you've presented. Its a widely held view and I'm
> familiar with it. It seems to be a pretty basic part of your take on
> things, but I'd like to attempt the impossible. I want to try and change
> your mind. (Collectiuve gasp from the fans.) I'd like to persuade you that
> it's not consistent with the facts of history and that it is not
> consistent with the MOQ. (I learned to study history at a very
> conservative college before the age of political correctness, so please
> don't dismiss this as PC.) ...
>
> Before I get to the Conquest's quote, let me address your intro
> paragraph... Your fear is way too broad. The good of humanity is something
> that all of us want, that's why scoudrels use it to sell their goods. It
> has broad appeal and that has been exploited by those with other things in
> mind. But this baby is way too important to throw out with the bathwater.
> You know? If we dismiss everyone who claimed to be interested in the good
> of humanity, we'd have to toss out John Brown and his truth, Thomas
> Jefferson, Jesus Christ, and lots of other worthy figures. You know? And
> finally I have to say that it just isn't fair to characterize the
> assertions of others as "moral pronouncements" simply because we're all
> here to discuss Pirsig's "Inquiry into morals" and it would be too easy to
> hang that label on anyone. This is not to suggest that our forum is free
> of self-righteousness or pomposity, but if you're gonna call someone on
> that you've got to be specific. You've got to admit, discussing
> metaphysics and morals is a pretty grand all by itself. Moral
> pronouncements might be hard to avoid in such a setting, eh? This place is
> nothing but.
>
> And just one paragraph about Conquest's version of history...
> He says that revolutionaries view dictatorship and terror as necessary and
> then goes on to compare political revolutionaries with ritual sacrifice in
> pre-Columbian Central America? His use of the phrase "ripping the hearts
> out" may be true, but its sheer hype. Its the literary version of
> gratuitous violence. This is obscenely unscientific. And just think about
> this characterization of revolutionaries in contrast to the things Pirsig
> says about revolutionaries. He says its the contrarians like himself and
> the Zuni shaman who are the sources of Dynamic change, the virtual agents
> of evolution. He says that the MOQ can do something that SOM couldn't;
> tell the difference between criminals and revolutionaries. He praises John
> Brown, Abe Lincoln, Ghandi and describes himself as a contrarian and his
> own work as a Copernican Revolution of sorts.
> I think its safe to say that Pirsig Loves real revolutionaries.
>
> Platt said,
> That pretty much sums up my reaction when I read some of the Christmas
> posts. I detected what I considered to be "moralists" in the negative,
> "Rigelistic" sense. It's my fault for not coming right out and plainly
> explaining
> my fear of utopian ideologues, and I now admit to a degree of paranoia of
> any
> absolutist approach to solving the world's problems whether it be
> evangelical
> Christians, environmentalists, Randian capitalists, or lovers.
>
> DMB says,
> We certainly agree that Rigelistic moralists are terrible and unhelpful,
> but I'm not hearing any commandments about personal behavior for others.
> I'm not even seeing anyone offer advice on such things. (Well, OK,
> Cntryforce has been way over the top on occasion, but it seems
> forgive-able because his instincts are decent and I'm guessing he's very
> young.) This medium sort of excludes everything but words and so its
> impossible to know anything about the moral behavior of this forum's
> participants. All I see an an effort to understand the MOQ. Which is
> exactly why I wish to persuade you that the assumption that
> revolutionaries are heart-ripping dictators of terror is not consistent
> with the MOQ. I think you have to pick one or the other because the
> contradiction between them is too great. (In spite of the silence that
> followed David T's question, I changed my mind about some things and gave
> up some long-held assumptions because of Pirsig, and others, but that's
> another post. You've been in such a gracious mood, I thought you might be
> ripe for it too.)
>
> Oh, and as to the issue of human sacrifice,... John 3:16, dude. You don't
> even have to look it up. You already know human sacrifice is still an
> essential idea in our own culture and it was long before 1776 or 1789.
>
> Thanks for your time.
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 - 16:03:17 BST