From: edeads (edeads@prodigy.net)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 06:10:36 GMT
A bit late in response, but this thread caught my eye.
Platt's initial 11/4/04 argument is interesting in that it doesn't deny the
intellectual perspective is without merit or supremacy, but that the fear of
"destructive forces of biological values" outweighs this perspective. He
wrote:
But, if those social patterns, as intellectually unappealing as they may be,
are what's holding back the socially destructive forces of biological
values, then I'm thankful for them -- until the intellectual basis for
morals, as set forth in the MoQ, catches hold among the general populace.
The "values voters" that likely won the election for Bush were drawn to the
polls largely by a platform that encroaches upon abortion rights and
supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They believe that
suppression of these biological activities will enhance society. Pirsig
p308, "Biological quality is necessary to the survival of life. But when it
threatens to destroy society, biological quality becomes evil itself, the
"Great Satan" of twentieth century Western culture." Yet DMB on 11/6 notes:
The conservatives THINK they are putting "morals" over "sin", but they're
actually putting religious beliefs over individual rights.
To help clarify these views, Pirsig p309, "What the Metaphysics of Quality
concludes is that the old Puritan and Victorian social codes shuld not be
followed blindly, but should not be attacked blindly either. They should be
dusted off and re-examined, fairly and impartially, to see what they were
trying to accomplish and what they actually did accomplish towards building
a stronger society. We must understand that when a society undermines
intellectual freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but
when it represses biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely
morally good."
As Pirsig suggests, we must look at effects fairly and impartially. A first
question becomes, Are these biological qualities (abortion, homosexuality)
threatening to destroy society? Similarly, a second question arises, Are the
"values voters" undermining intellectual freedom for their own purpose?
I tentatively argue against Arlo's 11/4 post where he noted, "What Platt
misses, and what has been repeatedly argued, is that this was not a victory
of "social over biological", it was a victory of "social over intellectual".
Perhaps a fine point, but Pirsig p162 indicates, "Second, there were moral
codes that established the supremacy of the social order over biological
life-conventional morals-proscriptions against drugs, murder, aldultery,
theft and the like." Proscriptions against abortion or the rights of
homosexual couples appear to me to mostly fit this description.
Yet I often find it challenging to distinguish between social-biological or
intellectual-social intefaces. The laws that impact society are arrived at
in the intellectual level; Pirsig p162 notes, "Third, there were moral codes
that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social
order-democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press." As
such, this election and the results represent an intellectual-social
dynamic.
The social forces now have greater restraint over biology. The win here is
society over biology. Yet I ultimately agree with Arlo in that this election
was also a victory of "social over intellectual," and will argue that the
intellectual level was not provided a fair and impartial voice; social
forces drowned out rationality for its own purpose. With the greater use of
fear tactics by conservatives in this election it appears that the "values
voters" had their own purpose in mind. Why else would they often resort to
deception and fear?
This fear of "destructive forces of biological values" (relative to abortion
and homosexuality) is exaggerated at this point in society's evolution, and
what fear is merited can be handled in more humane or quality ways rather
than restrictive or discriminatory legislation. Research has supported this
view. For an interesting opinion, Pirsig's Afterward to the twenty-fifth
anniversary edition of ZMM implies support for abortion rights.
Further, I have not come across any properly constructed meta-research that
shows harm done to society by homosexuals. Indeed, research shows that there
is no harm done (Refer to
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=965). The
Christian reliance on a static moral code that denigrates homosexuals may
well engender detrimental actions against the gay community. Short of
evidence that a particular group's cultural characteristics cause harm there
is no moral veracity to the argument for exclusion. In fact, the exact
opposite can be argued: it is more moral to enhance community with greater
inclusion. Pirsig writes:
P298 "The doctrine of scientific disconnection from social morals goes all
the way back to the ancient Greek belief that thought is independent of
society, that it stands alone, born without parents. Ancient Greeks such as
Socrates and Pythagoras paved the way for the fundamental principle behind
science: that truth stands independently of social opinion. It is to be
determined by direct observation and experiment, not by hearsay. Religious
authority always has attacked this principle as heresy. For its early
believers, the idea of a science independent of society was a very dangerous
notion to hold. People died for it.
The defenders who fought to protect science from church control argued that
science is not concerned with morals. Intellectuals would leave morals for
the church to decide. But what the larger intellectual structure of the
Metaphysics of Quality makes clear is that this political battle of science
to free itself from domination by social moral codes was in fact a moral
battle! It was the battle of a higher, intellectual level of evolution to
keep itself from being devoured by a lower, social level of evolution."
The social forces of corporations had a lot of influence in this election,
and I would separately argue that they are dismantling this nation with the
help of Bush and his supporters. This includes the "values voters" - but I'm
not sure they understand what it is they support. If the lamp of science and
effects cannot illumine social codes that are no longer beneficial, I'm as
scared as Platt, but not of biology. I'm scared that social forces are
devouring intellectual forces.
But this is an old story. P221 "On the other hand the conservatives who keep
trumpeting about the virtues of free enterprise are normally just supporting
their own self interests. The are just doing the usual cover-up for the rich
in their age-old exploitation of the poor." Watch the movie, "The Gangs of
New York" with Leonardo DiCaprio, and hear a politician murmer that you can
always bribe half the poor to fight the other half.
Steve peterson 11/5/04 noted: Like Platt, I am also very interested in how
morality has influenced the election. Since reading Lila, I have long
thought that the Democrats were making a huge mistake by shying away from
use of the terms "morality" and "values." Liberals have failed to
articulate their moral view. They have tended to cringe at the sound of
these words and allowed the Republicans to seize the terms of debate that
were perhaps the most important in deciding the election.
I couldn't agree more. The Democrats (and Independents) are making a moral
argument and CAN state it as such. It's profoundly challenging, however,
when the "values voters" often believe they are fighting satanic forces. I
don't mind the different language they use, but do mind that, at least in my
perception, there is an avoidance of rationalles that contradict their
static codes. Maybe I avoid as well. But I need some evidence. Otherwise we
better (as Arlo reminds in his 11/5 post that quotes the Bible) not touch or
go anywhere near a woman who has just menstruated, or else we will be
unclean. Shall we write this moral code into law?
I maintain that we must incorporate an assessment of effects. Are these
biological qualities of abortion and homosexuality threatening to destroy
society? I see no evidence that they are. We should be more concerned about
the biological forces of world population growth. Are the "values voters"
undermining intellectual freedom for their own purpose? Here, I see
evidence; inflated fear always points to an alternative purpose. Conclusion:
Social level 1, Intellectual level 0. Quality took a hit.
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 Nov 22 2004 - 06:53:48 GMT