From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 21:17:03 GMT
Hi Erin,
> I have to laugh Platt, I just reading something about how when they say
> morals are important they are usually talking about sex.
Yes, I think it's promiscuous sex they're talking about along with a
general unease with the American culture's emphasis on materialism.
> Do you feel
> comfortable about speaking for they (who are they?), is that true?
I sense what Pirsig sensed when described the sign on the marquee in
Chapter 22 of Lila that "pointed to the same low quality thing he saw
everywhere but couldn't put into words." I think a lot of people are like
that. They can't always find the right words to express their sense that
social values in the U.S. are degenerating. But, they can express it in
their votes. Of course, Pirsig did put words to the causes for this low
social quality. Chapters 22 and 24 spell it all out clearly and, I think,
rightly. Biological "feel good" forces are winning while the social values
that keep them in check are weakening under the assault of amoral science,
otherwise known as secularism..
> This set up of right = morals and left = no morals implication seems as
> oversimplistic as DMBs Democrats= intellectual level and Republicans =
> social level.
I agree. The joy of Pirsig is his genius in putting moral issues in a much
broader context.
> Is freedom and respect for individual thought/rights/etc. really promoted
> when values is viewed through the lens of politics?
Let's not forget that politics created our constitution where intellectual
rights are protected by the courts and the strong arm of the military and
police.
> Another question:
> The division of the country or the list, is it good or bad for growth?
> That is does having the division on the list promote better discussions?
I think division is good for growth, like the division between dynamic and
static. Both are needed.
> I actually voted for the candidate that I thought was the lesser of two
> evils, but I just heard a good interview of a third candidate speech
> convincing me to not do that again. He compared it to the example of
> choosing a between a large chance of two types of death penalties and a
> small chance of getting out of jail. I think I am only going to vote for
> who I want to win, not against who I don't want to win ever again. Too
> bad there weren't many politicians that actually make you want to vote for
> them in the two party system. Erin
There are almost as many reasons to vote or not to vote as there are
citizens. Regardless of the negative aspects of the two party system, or
democracy for that matter, it's the best means of governing that mankind
has been able to devise so far -- don't you think?
Best,
Platt
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 : Thu Nov 04 2004 - 21:17:17 GMT