From: ant.mcwatt@ntlworld.com
Date: Mon Sep 13 2004 - 19:57:08 BST
Platt,
I do agree with you that MOQ Discuss is a “free market place of thought” though I’m very sorry to hear that some US state legislatures (i.e. social patterns) are attempting to impose limits (i.e. read right-wing views) of thought (i.e. intellectual patterns) on state-supported universities. Though a similar “Academic Bill of Rights” would be a good idea if applied to break up the monopoly of the limited spectrum of political thought found in Washington, in an university context, such a policy will be a disaster. While a plural spectrum of thought is ideally a good attribute at university level, this type of artificial imposition is immoral and Soviet-like. It would be like Horse imposing a policy where you and Ham Priday would be allowed to make ten posts a day on MOQ Discuss while the rest of us could post only one. The only moral way for the Right to dominate the “free market place of thought” in universities (or elsewhere) is through the quality of their intellectual arguments. (I do take it that yo
u wholeheartedly agree with me here?)
As you ask, I highly doubt that Pirsig (as a free thinking intellectual) would ever support such a bill. You only have to read his experience (in ZMM) with the Republicans at Montana State College to realise this. The teaching only college they tried to implement at Montana was done to give an impression of a high quality education on the cheap (through rigged examinations which all students had to pass) while, in reality, they reduced quality.
“[Montana State College] was what could euphemistically be called a ‘teaching college.’ At a teaching college you teach and you teach and you teach with no time for
research, no time for contemplation, no time for participation in outside
affairs. Just teach and teach and teach until your mind grows dull and your
creativity vanishes and you become an automaton saying the same dull things over
and over to endless waves of innocent students who cannot understand why you are
so dull, lose respect and fan this disrespect out into the community. The reason
you teach and you teach and you teach is that this is a very clever way of
running a college on the cheap while giving a false appearance of genuine
education.” (ZMM, 1974, Chapter 13, beginning of)
>> Intellectuals per se are a social grouping i.e. a social group that
>> professionally engages in intellectually orientated work (usually in an
> >educational setting).
>By this definition it seems the only people we can call “intellectuals”
>are college professors.
Is that right, Platt? What about college lecturers, researchers and post-grads? And authors such as Pirsig or Wilber?
>How about media pundits, innovate business people
>and researchers in the private sector?
As with “SOM” in your misleading criticisms of intellectuals, I can’t see any reference to “public” or “private” in my definition.
>Are not Bill Buckley, Bill Gates and Wallace Carothers
>(inventor of nylon) intellectuals?
I think this issue depends (like defining “social” or “intellectual”), on how far you want to stretch a definition. If you stretch it too far it becomes useless because, for instance, everything becomes social or intellectual. I’d draw the line at what tends to be a person’s full time occupation so while Bill Gates and Wallace Carothers would definitely be out (as “intellectuals”), Bill Buckley’s position would be more ambiguous. As far as he isn’t a stooge for the Right (as independence of thought is, no doubt, a requirement for being an intellectual) he is possibly an intellectual though I also have an impression is that his “day job” these days tends to be more as a political commentator.
>Besides, Pirsig
>said that anyone who is up to reading Lila occupied the intellectual level
>defining it as the “same as mind.” I think that would include a lot more
>people than you account for.
You’re getting confused between the social understanding of “intellectual” and the intellectual level again. Just because you might employ intellectual abilities in your job as a head of Microsoft or reading LILA, doesn’t mean (in my definition, at least) that you are in the social group of intellectuals.
As far as your other replies to my last e-mails (as well as to DMB), a couple of other issues particularly strike me.
> A “Buddhist philosopher” is an oxymoron…
I think only a person relatively unfamiliar with Buddhist philosophy would try that on. (Come on Platt, you know that you should have qualified your previous criticism of intellectuals with the prefix “SOM” and I’m afraid no amount of smoke screening on your part is going to get you off that particular hook – Get Real!).
As such, I think it might be a good idea if you read some Buddhist philosophy. In fact, you might like to start with Robert Pirsig’s own recommendation below:
“There is a very good book on Buddhism recently out called “Buddhism, Plain and Simple”, by Steve Hagen and published by Turtle. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen.” (Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt May 6th 1998)
Moreover, there’s an element of compassion in Buddhism which you would do well to take on board (it is absolutely ludicrous that anyone purporting to support the MOQ can imply that “health care for everybody” is immoral) and it might help you see that you are undermining the MOQ with your continuing tendency to place social value patterns above intellectual levels. A good dose of Buddhism (or a spell with the Native American Church even?) would also assist in giving a more enlightened world view more akin to the spirit of the MOQ.
Moreover, to prevent your continued confusion with the ideal forms of social systems (such as socialism, capitalism etc) and their actual manifestations as found in the West or in Asia, (as I can’t be bothered to go through your last e-mail to correct all these logical errors again – I’ve got a thesis to finish) I think you really have to read Northrop’s “The Meeting of East and West” and/or “The Logic of the Sciences and Humanities”.
The first Northrop text is mentioned in ZMM and started Pirsig off on his philosophical quest; the second he only read much later (on my suggestion) and he was surprized by how far that Northrop had worked towards the ideas of the MOQ in this book. The latter is an idealistic book - in that it is primarily concerned with maintaining world peace – but, at the same time, it is logically very hard headed. Though, my examiners for instance, often had a field day with Pirsig (with him not being a philosopher in an academic sense) there never found such a fault with Northrop – despite much of my thesis being grounded in his work.
Finally, I end on this point:
>It would certainly be a mistake to undermine the SOM oriented military
>since they need to objectively identify and stop enemies from destroying
>the higher levels.
With all this criticism of universities and their funding, I’d like to turn this round to the military sector where private funding and free markets should definitely be applied.
Instead of the majority (i.e. the working class/lower middle class) of people supplying the taxes ($70bn plus paid by American taxpayers alone for the Iraq fiasco, so far - $7bn by the UK taxpayer – these figures might actually be in sterling) and their teenagers as “shooting ducks”, it would be much cheaper for the majority of people if private companies (such as Halliburton) hired their own mercenaries. Not only would taxes be reduced but the manpower saved (literally!) could be put to regenerating the suburbs and providing improved education and health services. Simultaneously, the professional mercenaries (who would know exactly what they are getting themselves in - unlike the average 18-19 year old) would, no doubt, receive the proper professional equipment, fees and treatment for their services. If they weren’t, they would no doubt, go on to a conflict (or a different career) elsewhere. A true free market.
However, if Halliburton et al found that oil was proving too expensive to obtain by force (because, for instance, the mercenaries charged too much for their services), it would then provide them with an incentive to look at alternate sources of energy (such as solar, wind and nuclear fission) to maintain their profits and, as a bonus, help world peace and security.
But, then again, if the latter happened the Bush-Bin Ladens (and their stooges such as Blair and Rumsfeld) could find themselves unwanted and out of a job so what a low quality idea that would be…
As a true believer in free markets, I’m sure you wholeheartedly agree with privatising the military. Or do I hear some non-MOQ socialist ideas creeping in here on your part? ;- )
As ever, best wishes,
Anthony.
“With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn’t the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.” (Bill Buckley, New York Times, September 12th 2004)
-----------------------------------------
Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
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 : Mon Sep 13 2004 - 19:58:02 BST