From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jul 10 2005 - 16:01:04 BST
Hi Arlo,
> In other words, it is easy to see the soldier or policeman with his gun, it
> is not easy to see the psychological manipulations of, for example, a
> powerful speech, advertising, or (I would argue) consumerist placation.
You may have a point, but if you can see the manipulation in speech and
advertising, and I can see it, I think it's safe to say others can, too. I
believe people are smart enough to know what's good and not good for them.
Of course, there are exceptions, but by protecting them from their
mistakes, they'll never learn.
> In short, you can argue as to the
> precise quantitative measures used, but the claim is a quantitative one,
> and if it is offered as "truth", D'Souza must offer some support for how he
> can make such a claim.
I've argued before that you left out the modifier of his claim, "fuller."
But, you don't buy it. No point in repeating an argument without end.
> [Platt responded]
> >As for support, see above. Does Belgium have an army?
>
> [Arlo adds]
> The fact that you have to ask indicates all by itself that its army is more
> "gentle" than ours. :-)
Sorry. I was being facetious and apologize to all Belgians.
> The point is that many people worldwide act in community-minded ways, often
> at a material sacrifice to themselves, oriented by a higher ideal than
> material capital (economic or symbolic). To make an implication that such
> compassionate action is somehow "self-serving" belies a materialist
> normalization of people. If you've made no such implication, I apologize.
I question whether sacrifice is a higher ideal than capital. Acquisition
of capital is necessary to avoid low quality poverty. Nor do I find
sacrifice to be called for by the MOQ except in defense of freedom.
> [Arlo replies]
> Wow. I didn't realize there were people who used the "bastard" designation
> any longer.
Now you know. :-)
> [Platt responds to Arlo's agreement to use Wikipedia and MW Dictionary, but
> not exclusively] >What sources would you suggest we might agree on? Seems
> we could save an >awful lot of time and frustration if we could agree on
> reliable sources. >If I cite Limbaugh as a source you would object.
> LIkewise, if you cite >Chomsky. Also, we should try to agree on what
> constitutes "truth" and >"proof."
>
> [Arlo replies]
> I think both "truth" and "proof" depend on the claim being made. Some
> things are, after all, opinion (although one hopefully based on a response
> to Quality, and not covert or overt coercion). We should agree then to be
> upfront when opinion claims are made (educated and otherwise), and should
> be wary of opinion that passes itself of as "truth".
That's going to be tough because according to postmodernism, all truth is
opinion or "intersubjective agreement." Further there are different kinds
of truth: the truth you feel, the truth you are told, the truth you find
useful and the truth of your direct sense perception modified by reason.
(From the book, "Truth" by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto.) I may be wrong, but
I would guess the MOQ favors the truth of direct perception.
> However, what I look for mostly in sources are (1) open and viewable
> research, (2) a concern with truth over political agenda, and (3) an
> evolutionary view. What I mean by 3 is that people who dogmatically cling
> to ideas are usually more interested in advancing their "cause" than
> critically and fairly examining facts. So while people may debate over what
> the facts "mean", people who continually dismiss them are (in my opinion)
> propagandists for a "cause" other than "truth".
Here I ask what constitute "facts?" That's what's really at the heart of
my question about reliable sources. I've named Wikipedia and Merriam-
Webster as reliable sources and will now add the phone directory, daily
stock market reports, and almanac of the moon, stars and planets. I look
forward to any specific reliable sources you care to recommend. Limbaugh
and Chomsky are definitely out. :-)
> So, you can cite me any source you wish. As with D'Souza, I'll read it (if
> I have time), and let you know where I agree or disagree. With the D'Souza
> piece I saw far more politicizing and advancing a political agenda than
> concern over the actuality of what he was saying. This is the type of stuff
> I dismiss. I would expect you'd do the same.
The problem I see is that this allows either one of us to dismiss "the
stuff" of anyone we perceive to have a political agenda which, when the
subject is "a moral society" is just about anyone we might cite.
> [Arlo replies]
> The fact that I have heard you admit to the value of collectivist
> enterprise alone means I will sleep well tonight. :-) As for what
> percentage "should" be, I have no idea. But I imagine we will be seeing
> more as time goes by, emerging as they should by individuals valuing such
> activity.
Glad to contribute to a restful sleep. :-) But, I imagine we'll be seeing
less collectivism as time goes by as intellectual values are recognized as
more moral than social values and democracy spreads across the world.
But, I could be wrong.
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 : Sun Jul 10 2005 - 15:59:52 BST