From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 19:49:27 BST
[Arlo previously...]
It was not a defeat of "secularism" by "Judeo-Christianity". Our power structure
(fueled nearly exclusively by wealth) simply bankrupted theirs.
[Platt]
> Yes. Not only does capitalism outperform socialism, it's more moral
> according to our friend Pirsig. Granted, Pirsig doesn't attribute the
> higher morality to Christianity but to Dynamic Quality. But I think
> Christian morality played a key role in communism's defeat, exemplified by
papacy of John Paul II who I've noticed you've had nothing to say..
Secular capitalism generates greater wealth than secular totalitarian power
structures, yes.
I'd say the static church was a secondary power structure (our seculuar
government was the primary one) that worked against the totalitarian power
structure. Does that mean that individuals, guided by compassion for those
suffering under brutal regimes, did not do anything? Of course not, but the
defeat was not due to "Christian morality", it was due to the wealth generating
ability of secular capitalism.
That the papacy was vocal against a brutal totalitarian regime is all well and
good (although its historical track record on this is also somewhat less thans
stellar), but not the primary cause of Russia's collapse.
[Arlo previously]
> > My main point is that capitalism fears the idea that greed and
> > individual wealth fixations are somehow less important than anything
> > else, and so it villifies and uses deceptive rhetoric against the
> > opposition, through misuing labels to spreading xenophobic fear.
[Platt]
> Thanks for the sermon, but you didn't answer my questions.
[Arlo]
You made the statement that many people still cling to communism. I said why
this is (one reason, at least). That many people reject the Money=God mentality
of modern capitalist practice. I used the Amish to show that not all opposition
to wealth fixation is "communist" (in your sense), although the Amish are quite
Marxist in many ways (I want to addend my little formulae to read "Marx + God +
Ludditism = Amish")
Furthermore, I proposed that the Amish "God" is what keeps the wealth fixation
"in check" and allows their social structure to work just fine without
"capitalism". The mainstream American God, I'd argue, turns a blind eye to
wealth fixations.
Finally, I argue that tactics such as yours (deceptive pairings, distorted
historical references, xenophobic scare tactics, etc.) are exactly the tactics
employed by capitalist power structures that "fear" any change in people that
abolishes (or even questions) our wealth fixation. The point is how "power
structures" manipulate language to consolidate and reify their power.
Evidence: In my story about one street that rejected the idea of a communal
snowblower in order to "each own their own", you immediately took my challenge
to mainstream capitalist principles to label me "against private property".
Deceptive manipulation of the dialogue and a call to xenophobic fears,
demonstrated to the "T".
How does that not answer your question?
[Arlo previously]
> > No, of course not. But my point is that money is not the only means to
> > express value. So is compassion. So is concern. So is respect. So is
> > supporting adequate health care for all people (and not even just US
> > citizens). So is a focus on being kind rather than wealthy.
[Platt]
> No one in the U.S. prevents you from expressing the values you cite,
> except for universal health care which would require coercion that you.
> say you are against.
Sigh. "Public roads" also constitute coercion. So does the funding of "police
and miliatry structures". So do the majority of "firehouses". You feel no
qualms about forcing me to support your military, do you? You'll tell me I reap
the benefits of it, even if I disagree with funding it.
Tell me why you feel I should be coerced into funding your military, and that's
perfectly moral, but that it is immoral for you to be forced to support
adequate health care for the nation's citizens?
It cracks me up that "Christians" in this country reject providing health care
for its citizens, citing that it takes away their individual wealth stockpiles.
WWJD? Where are those "Christian morals"? (feeding the poor, sheltering the
homeless, healing the sick...)
If we are founded on "Christian morals", shouldn't the actions advocated by
Jesus be the basis for our static social government?
[Platt]
> Are not theologians intellectuals? Will you ever address Pirsig's claim
> that today's "critical thinking" intellectualism "has no provision for
> morals?" Do you agree with that or not?
[Arlo]
Theologians advancing "religious nationalism" are just as stuck in static social
patterns of religion as the congregation who follow their words. I find that
most Quakers participate in religion "more" on the intellectual and Dynamic
levels than most "theologians" who continue to advance nationalistic ideas such
as "My Prophet is the Only True Prophet", or "God Only Revealed Himself To A
Select Tribe in The Middle East". Theologians who spend their time writing
lengthy treatises on why only their God is the true God, and everyone else all
over the world is wrong and going to hell, to be mere voices for static social
power reification.
"Intellectualism" has no provision for morals because of the underlying
metaphyics in the language, right? The MOQ is designed to "give" a moral
structure to "intellectualism" (as well as the other layers).
Are you saying that your reading of Pirsig is that he finds intellectuals ipso
facto amoral? That is, even with a MOQ foundation, intellectual thinking is
less moral than static social morality provided by static social institutions?
If so, why didn't Pirsig elevate the social level about the intellectual?
My contention is the critical thinking intellectuals, with a MOQ foundation,
advance a "more moral structure" than static social power structures. Would you
disagree?
[Platt]
> The rhetorical move on your part is to talk about the past 2000 years and in
an attempt to cast a smokescreen over the positive role of Christianity vs.
communism in the 20th century.
[Arlo]
Oh please. What is rhetorical about showing the historical context for the
wonderous "morality" you say pervades Christianity in the last hundred years.
If it is so wonderfully "moral", why was it so brutal for the two thousand
previous years? I submit it has to do with a transfer of power from religious
structures to secular structures.
** CORE POINT **
I.e. The "brutality" followed the power. For two thousand years the "power" was
in static religious power structures, and so was the "brutality". Now power has
been transferred to static secular power structures, and so now is the
"brutality".
It has nothing to do with "maturation". It has to do with a loss of power. Of
course, that has not prevented the static religious power structures from
employing xenophobia and fear to control what power it continues to wield.
You continue to act as if "religious power" is this shining beacon against
secular brutality, which is so historically misguided and deceptive its hard to
imagine commenting on. For two centuries, while *it* was the dominant power, it
was just as brutal. To dismiss this, and focus on past 100 years...
Why, by this reasoning, were the two thousand years when the "christian church"
wielded the power in the western world, not the most utopic we have ever seen
(for everyone, not just the monarchies)? Where was that Judeo-Christian
"democracy"? Or that Judeo-Christian "capitalism"? Are you suggesting that we
should return to life as it was during the two thousand years of church power?
By the way, I've notice you've cut out my question as to the historical origins
of democracy. You made the claim that it was "Judeo-Christian". I made the
claim that it was pre-Christian Greek and Iroquios, asking that if was a
Judeo-Christian construct, why it never appeared during the two thousand years
that the Judeo-Christian church held power? No response?
[Arlo asked]
> > Is intolerance of intolerance itself intolerance?
[Platt answered...]
> Of course. Words mean things. Your attempt to define the "real meaning" of
intolerance is typical deceptive use of language, like trying to convince us
that Marx's call for "forcible overthrow" didn't mean guns and bullets and
gulags. Talk about twisting the language, not to mention ignoring history!
[Arlo]
My attempt to what??
Our founders called for a "forcible overthrow" of monarchical power. Did they
mean that we should employ gulags in support of a dictator? Guns and bullets,
maybe. We used them in our "revolution". Indeed, they've been used in every
revolution (force has, before gunpowder it was swords and arrows).
Nowhere in Marx can you extend his call for a "forcible overthrow" of corrupt
and abusive power structures to support for the brutal actions of totalitarian
dictators. Or if you can, I'm still waiting for the citation.
Which of course, says nothing to the irony that the people who have been most
intolerant (and continue to be so) in this country are now complaing that they
are the victions of intolerance. Its one of the more funny, and karmic, things
I've seen in my life.
The "left", so overly tolerant of everything, but critical of the intolerance of
the right, is now being condemned for its intolerance... as they say in the
service... Hoody Hoo!!!
Arlo
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 Apr 24 2005 - 20:16:33 BST