From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 02:26:47 BST
David, Mark...
[Mark wrote]
> Dmb, thanks for the LILA references; I'll reread them during the
> week. And let's see if we can give this thread some legs. Arlo?
Count me in. First though I want to comment on David's statement:
[DMB wrote]
First of all I would like to point out that putting Pat Robertson in the same
category with Hitler and Stalin was not meant to imply that christian
fundametalists are busy building their own concentration camps or gulags. I
mean, if I had said that Pat Robertson was a genocidal maniac you would be
right to dismiss me as a dude with no sense of perspective or proportion.
Of course, *I* got what you were getting at. For Platt, the analogy provided too
much of a chance for a distortive rebuttal. By focusing instead on "similar"
brutalities of power structures (tryannies committed by "church" power on scale
with tyrannies commited by "secular" power), I had hoped to get him to see that
his secular-evil, religious-altruistic has no historical justification at all.
The "key", as I said, is to look at "power". For the two millenia the "church"
held power, it used xenophobia and opiating rewards to wage war, commit
brutalities and reify its power. During the Age of Reason (to risk being overly
simplistic to the timeline), power shifted radically from the church (and its
monarchical arms) to secular government.
Since this shift, the brutal displays of power we've seen are "secular" (whether
Russian, American or whatever), with the exception of most of the middle east
where "religious power structures" continue to dominate. But, the use of
xenophobia and distortive use of language continues to employed by static
religious structures in the attempt to continue to wield some power (and,
interestingly, in American politics to regain control of secular power).
It is the Robertson's who blindside true religious quests with zealotry towards
the static institution. Thus, "religion" becomes a fanatical latching to social
patterns, while the intellectual and dynamic aspects of "spirituality" are not
only ignored, but fervently attacked.
Today, our modern secular government uses the same fear-scare xenophobic tactics
employed by the church during its power reign. Intellectualism is, as you have
both suggested, repressed (at best) and villified (at worst). "Patriotism",
like its statically-focused twin "religion", becomes nothing more than a
fanatical latching to social patterns. Sound familiar?
The reasons, of course, are easy to spot. What I feel is the strongest is that
"intellectual" and "dynamic" patterns tend to break corrupt and injust power
structures. "Intellectual" religion, say Unitarianism or Buddhism as possible
examples, destroys the concept of "religious nationalism" so necessary for the
"church" to control its congregations. If "my God" is a cultural representation
similar to "your God", people like Robertson would be out of work, and hence
out of power.
Likewise, if "wealth fixations" (a staple of modern capitalistic practice) are
questioned on the intellectual level, those in power will lose their power. And
so the dialogue is vehemently distorted (you know the tactics, blind repitition
of deceptive pairings, distortive language, xenophobia, and opiating rewards)
in order to protect static social patterns.
But that's a little bit of a digression...
[DMB writes]
The one thing these wildly different characters all have in common is an
anti-intellectual, anti-Modern stance at the heart of it all. So I'm saying that
one of Pirsig's BEST moves is to make a distinction between the social and
intellectual levels. Its a tool that allows us to sort out all kinds of issues.
And the reason for the anti-intellectual, anti-modern stance is the protection
of static social power by those who wield it.
Platt calls the tyrannical regime of Stalin "intellectual", in an all to obvious
attempt to scare people away from intellectual reasoning regarding "politics",
and instead make them cling unintelligently to social patterns that support his
power structure (although to do this, he has to turn a blind eye to the tyranny
of the church regimes throughout history).
But Stalin's tyranny was not "intellectual" governing, it was social power. And
this is where it gets back to Pirsig (for me). There are real attempts at
"intellectual" governing throughout modern times, from Canada to Sweden to
Denmark to New Zealand, even the foundational basis for American government.
Pirsig criticized the economic orientations of these other countries for
closing the door (to various degrees) to free market dynamism. We've been down
that road, so that's old list stuff.
But this is where, politically, I see the greatest evidence of the battle
between the "intellectual" and "social" levels. America, under Bush and with
spokespeople such as Platt, are retreating with force into the previous static
social patterns, and in their retreat are doing everything possible to scare
and villify anything that challenges these old static social codes.
[MSH wrote]
> Though Robertson has relatively little power,
> the enslavement of similar minds is the first step toward the
> elimination of minds not similar. It's not as big a jump as one
> might at first imagine.
No, it's not. And one that is not without historic precedent. Something the
power elite do not want people to know or think about. But as long as
"patriotism" is unquestioned loyalty to static SOCIAL patterns, rather than
loyalty to intellectual reason, then there is little we can do, except watch
(sorry for the Monday evening cynicism).
[MSH wrote]
> Yes, in reading what I wrote above, I give the impression that I
> think the dichotomies are illusions or something, and this is wrong.
> The dichotomies are real, but, unless one side or the other has real
> power, the schism is nothing more than sibling bickering.
Very true. "Marxism" (for example) has no power in this country. And yet people
like Platt create villifying dichotomies to keep us focused on the "war"
between capitalism and marxism. This is a red-herring. But the number of people
in this country who are NOT passionately wed to static social patterns via
"patriotism", and who are instead wed to intellectual "ideas" (such as freedom)
are not without power (just not "in" power). And herein is the real battle,
between social and intellectual patterns (assuming, again, we are just focusing
on political power structures).
More to say, but it will have to wait for tomorrow. Looking forward to the
discussion...
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 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 02:30:24 BST