From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 02:42:54 BST
Platt, Chuck, Marsha and all MOQers:
Platt said:
There appears to be a contradiction or at least a question regarding
Pirsig's views on "social equality." At first, he praises the concept:
"The idea that "all men are created equal" is a gift to the world from the
American Indian. Europeans who settled here only transmitted it as a
doctrine that they sometimes followed and sometimes did not. The real
source was someone for whom social equality was no mere doctrine, who had
equality built into his bones. To him it was inconceivable that the world
could be any other way. For him there was no other way of life. That's
what Ten Bears was trying to tell them.
Phaedrus thought the Indians haven't yet lost this one. They haven't yet
won it either, he realized; the fight isn't over. It's still the central
internal conflict in America today. It's a fault line, a discontinuity
that runs through the center of the American cultural personality. It's
dominated American history from the beginning and continues to be a source
of both national strength and weakness today." (Lila, 3)
Platt later added:
......But keep in mind he is specifically talking about social equality,
not biological or intellectual. And by social equality he meant equality
of social classes, or absence of hereditary classes such as found in
Europe. At least, that's how I read it.
dmb says:
There is a reason the phrase "all men are created equal" appears in quotes.
Pirsig is quoting the declaration of independence, which adds European
enlightenment philosophy to the the Indian's bone-deep sense of equality. As
such, it is not just a social level value but most importantly an
intellectual principle. In chapter 24, Pirsig asserts that the MOQ...
"..says that what is meant by 'human rights' is usually the moral code of
intellect-vs-society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
control. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, of travel; trail by jury;
habeas corpus; government by consent - these 'human rights' are all
intellectual-vs-society issues. According to the MOQ these 'human rights'
have not just a sentimental basis, but a ratonal metaphysical basis. They
are essential to the evolution of a higher form of life from a lower form of
life."
dmb continues:
The list of rights here obviously refers to the Bill of Rights in the U.S.
Constitution, where the doctrine of equality was enshrined in the highest
laws. So I think this goes well beyond a rejection of European class
structures and the like. And I think Platt is, as usual, misreading Pirsig
in order to protect his ideology. I mean, if the principle of equality is
the faultline in the American cultural personality, Platt is on the wrong
side of that fault line once again.
Platt quoted Pirsig:
Cultures are not the source of all morals, only a limited set of morals.
Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their contribution
to the evolution of life. A culture that supports the dominance of social
values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one
that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual
values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not. It
is immoral to speak against a people because of the color of their skin,
or any other genetic characteristic because these are not changeable and
don't matter anyway. But it is not immoral to speak against a person
because of his cultural characteristics if those cultural characteristics
are-immoral. These are changeable and they do matter. (Lila, 24)
Platt asked:
On the one hand, he says social equality is a good thing. On the other, he
says it's not a good thing to think that all societies are equal. Is this a
flip-flop? If not, what's the difference?
dmb says:
No, its not a flip-flop. In fact, the ideas in each quote are only enhanced
and strengthened when we add the other. We could even simplify it so that
even a perpetually confused conservative like Platt can understand it.
Quote #1 says equality is the central fault line in America, which sometimes
follows it and sometimes does not.
Quote #2 says these rights are intellectual principles which are necessary
for the evolution of life to higher levels.
Quote #3 says societies can be judged and that intellectually guided
societies are superior to socially guided societies.
Add these up and we can conclude that the US is intellectually guided TO THE
EXTENT that rights and equality are actually honored and upheld and socially
guided to the extent that that are not upheld. And along that line,...
Chuck said:
...........................To me, The second quote supports the first. A
culture may be judged by which individual or individuals said culture holds
up as the ideal, as what that culture as whole thinks of as Quality at the
moment. Sad commentary on the evangelistic, line-in-the-sand, war-machine
the U.S. sees in the mirror these mornings. It gets me down.
dmb says:
Right. We can see the respect for rights and such wane as militarism,
religiosity and other social level values increase. With this particular
administration we see contempt for international law, the UN, for democracy
in such places as Haiti, Venezuala, and Florida and there is very little
respect for science and intellecuals in general. I'd say there is almost
nothing intellectual about this gang.
And talk about might-makes-right morality! These guys take the cake. I think
it'll take at least a generation to repair the damage.
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sat Aug 14 2004 - 02:44:59 BST