RE: MD Provocative statements

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Aug 29 2004 - 22:16:49 BST

  • Next message: Charles Roghair: "Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil"

    Platt and all:

    Platt said:(This quote comes from the "Plotinus, Pirsig and Wilber" thread.)
    DMB praises Pirsig and Wilber for . . . "correcting the misinterpretations
    committed by scientific materialism, which has basically thrown out the
    wisdom of the ages." Bingo. DMB has put his finger on the heart of
    conservatism -- restoring "the wisdom of the ages."

    dmb replies:
    To be generous, Pirsig's respect for tradition and the accomplishments of
    the social level does make him a conservative in some sense of the word, the
    best sense of the word. But his stance is very far from the American
    conservatives of today, who are rightly described by Pirsig as neo-Victorian
    reactionaries, exploitive capitalists, church bigots and ignorant hicks. I
    know that's harsh, but these are the demographic realities of the Republican
    party and Pirsig's own admittedly insulting terms. And if I hadn't been
    reading Platt's posts for years I might not see how dramatically this form
    of conservatism colors the following "provocative" plattitudes...

    Platt said:
    In looking back over previous posts I noticed a number of provocative
    statements that may lead to further interesting discussion. Anyone
    disagree..?

    -- Political correctness is a blight on intellect.

    dmb says:
    I think that if freedom of the intellect were the actual concern here, the
    blight would be described in terms that more realistically reflect the
    current social restraints on free speech and the near-criminalizaton of
    political dissent. Platt's focus on PC is only consistent with his attacks
    on anything associated with the left. But real-world impact of campus speech
    codes is practically zero, while critics of the current "conservative"
    administration are labeled as anti-American, as unpatriotic, as treasonous,
    as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, etc., etc., by their "conservative"
    supporters. Some dissenters have even lost their jobs over it, but is Platt
    concerned about the real dangers to intellectual freedom or is he just
    trying to score another political point? For our European friends and for
    those who are not familiar with Platt's political leanings, the right has
    been using political correctness as a rhetorical bludgeon the left for at
    least a decade. Its all part of the angry-white-men thing. Apparently, lots
    of conservatives are upset that its no longer socially acceptable to refer
    to black people as "niggers" and such. Isn't it ironic that they feel
    oppressed by the demand that they stop oppressing others?

    -- Science isn't the last word on anything.

    dmb says:
    This is so very far from provocative that I genuinely wonder what the point
    is in saying it. If you're saying science doesn't provide any answers to the
    ultimate questions, I'd agree. But if you're saying there is something
    better at determining the speed of light, I'd have to ask what's better than
    science? If not science, who should have the last word on that particular
    topic?

    -- Beauty is closely related to Dynamic Quality.

    dmb says:
    I think this assertion is too vague to be meaningful. Are we talking about
    the beauty of a naked stripper, a freshly painted dog house, an equation in
    physics or my mother-in-law's garden? I get the impression that its way too
    easy to misunderstand the MOQ and equate our instincts and attraction to the
    surface beauty of things with loftier, less static things. I'd be interested
    in talking about beauty in a more traditional philosophical way where
    goodness and truth are included as in the days of Plato. I think this is the
    sense in which Pirsig's assertions about beauty and aesthetics have to be
    understood. I think his ideas about beauty are much bigger than Platt
    imagines. It ain't about pretty pictures or famous paintings.

    -- To put philosophy in the service of any social organization is immoral.

    dmb says:
    Here is another one that has unspoken ideological baggage behind it - or so
    I suspect. This assertion is perfectly consistent with the moral codes
    spelled out in LILA. Both point out that its immoral to assert social levels
    values over intellectual values. In the sense that they are all violating
    this principle, putting philosophy in the service of a social organization
    is just like using science to support creationism or racism or nationalism
    or any other social level ism. I strongly suspect that Platt reads it
    differently and would like it to contradict the idea that an intellectually
    guided society is superior to a social level culture.

    -- Helping others can cause misery.

    dmb says:
    This one takes the cake. I'm fairly certain that Platt has the welfare state
    in mind and that this is another case of using an assertion to attack the
    left while failing to see the real world meaning. I mean, if Iraq isn't an
    in-your-face-case of causing misery while intending to help, I don't know
    what is. I don't know what could be more conspicuous.

    -- Money is a measure of social values.

    dmb says:
    I can't help but wonder if Platt takes this to mean that poor people have
    little social value and that rich people have a lot. I think the quote says
    that money is an INDEX of social value and think of it in two different
    ways. On a personal scale, it seems that one is dominated by social level
    values to that extent that money is valued. On a cultural level, it seems
    that offical money flows toward those individuals and institutions that best
    serve society's values, while blackmarket cash flows toward the kind of
    biological values that undermine society. I don't know, but these kinds of
    distinctions help me live with the fact that strippers make more money than
    teachers and jocks make millions while intellectuals remain chronically
    underpaid and artists starve, etc..

    Arms dealers make tons of money. Death is very profitable. What does that
    say about our values?

    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 : Sun Aug 29 2004 - 22:22:02 BST