From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 00:08:23 GMT
Hi Kevin, Platt, Erin, John, Joe and all:
> Platt said:
>
> Thanks Kevin. I wish I could respond to your question about the
> public/private split but admit I haven't paid much attention to the
> idea.
> So I really can't answer except to say I agree with Pirsig:
>
> "To put philosophy in the service of any social organization or any
> dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a
> higher
> one." (29)
>
> I hope that's relevant. As you know, my bias has always been towards
> the individual rather than the group. I'm very wary of anything proposed
>
> in the name of the "public good" because of the horrors perpetrated
> under that banner.
>
> Kevin:
> I'll give credit to Matt for articulating the public/private split idea
> in a way that made it a very good solution to the problems I've had with
> the MOQ in the past.
>
> Essentially, the MOQ is most effective as a private tool for
> self-perfection. It is potentially disastrous as a public tool for
> deciding public policy (as is most philosophical ideas since they rely
> on such personal affirmation).
>
> I think the Pirsig quote above illustrates that Pirsig himself
> recognized the potential for disastrous misuse of his ideas if they were
> put to political ends.
>
> I believe very strongly in the principles of cooperation for achieving
> much good. That, however, relies on individuals who have an eye for
> Goodness. Individuals should push society towards Betterment. To reverse
> those roles creates enormous opportunities for tyranny.
>
> -Kevin
Mari says:
i think the so called "public/private split" as it pertains to using MoQ as
a tool for changing laws and systems which effect society's problems is not
exactly the same thing that Huxley was talking about when he used
"public/private" to explain the difference between "knowledge" and
"understanding"; although i'm sure we can hammer it enough to make_it_fit.
There is an ongoing argument in American politic that is confusing to me and
i would guess it's confusing to others because the language is heavily laden
with accusations and personal attacks and interpretation.
The Republicans ( conservatives ) for the most part suggests that there
should be "less government" and accuse the Democrats ( liberals ) of trying
to tell people what is the right thing to do by writing laws that attempt to
balance things for those who suffer any social injustice. In a way it seems
that what some MoQers fear is that by teaching the masses MoQ or using MoQ
to enact a plan for "making things better" it is akin to "more government"
and that is not a good thing.....we should not TELL people what to believe.
It strikes me as very ironic that the major issues of both parties are
bottom line the enacting of laws that "govern" society.
The "argument" gets old and falls apart for me when the spin doctors feed
the fire with rhetoric which winds up polarizing the country making the
issues partisan and divided.
i hear and see moqers admitting that MoQ has made a difference in their
life. Can't that individual influence find it's way into a social plan? That
"practical" thing that some of us keep talking about? i think an actual plan
needs to be tabled. If an idea is "best" ( at least better than what is
now ) then it would help the individual as well as the group. Am i mssing
something here?
Mari
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 Jan 18 2003 - 00:13:14 GMT