From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 10 2005 - 18:41:26 BST
Hi Platt,
>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.
The whole point of it being covert is that by definition it is internalized
and invisible. There are, of course, very covert (albeit not at the point
of a gun) aspects in advertising that can be seen as manipulative devices,
but these are not the ones I'm talking about. And, usually, they are
internalized (or some say "normalized into invisibility") only after some
amount of time are reinforcement (either in frequency or across multiple
messages). For example, the idea that "all action is undergirded by
material reward" is a covert aspect of capitalist ideology. Whether or not
is HAS to be, is another question.
At any rate, let's just agree that there is some amount of covert coercion
that occurs that makes people internalize behaviors that they would, in the
absence of such coercion, not find Quality. Advertising and speech-making,
as well as ideological assumptions are just a few I would argue contain
covert coercive components. (And, as an aside to Ham, this does not mean I
believe "ideology" to be a negative concept, only that we must explore, and
strive to illuminate, various covertly coercive components in any
particular ideology.)
> > 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.
Well, because his first claim was quantitative, and thus "easier" to
critically examine. What I'd need from D'Souza is whatever operational
definition he uses for "fuller". With that, I can agree or disagree with
how he defines it and what support exists for such claims. In the absence
of this, all we can conclude is that "Americans live fuller lives" is
simply opinion. And, as I've said, I don't care, so long as we are clear
that he is voicing "opinion", and not a statement of some form of
generalizable truth.
> > 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.
Ah, a great statement to start a new thread. Although it is in-line with
some things MSH has been pushing for in dialogue for quite some time.
What's interesting is that it is the core topic MSH started this thread
about. I'll rename it "MOQ and the Moral Society (Refined)" and see if
maybe that would make things fresh.
> > [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.
My take on postmodernism (and again, I do reject certain threads) and
"truth" reminds me on Pirsig's talk on polar versus Cartesian coordinates.
Neither are "true" in some absolutist sense (existing beyond people,
abstractly floating in space... ), but are points in the development of a
better understanding of Quality. So in some cases, I'd argue, that not
every statement has an absolute right and an absolute wrong component. We'd
be arguing which are "higher Quality". For example, whether the study that
ranks the US 46th in longevity or 38th in longevity is such a claim.
Neither is absolutely right or wrong, but we can argue (based on the
underlying assumptions of each study) which one represents a higher Quality
understanding. This is why we need to have these "underlying assumptions"
made available. Was D'Souza basing his claim on longevity "minus" poverty?
Was he defining "longevity" as not as actual average age of death, but as
something else? See? You might say the one that rankes us 38th is "higher
Quality" because it doesn't consider death-by-violence, and only looks at
natural death. I might disagree, but we'd have SOMETHING operationalized.
> > 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. :-)
I think there have been thread on empiricism and the like, and what
constitutes "fact". I'm not an expert in that field, so I'll plead
ignorance. I'll just state that as close as you can get to valid and
reliable statements is important. Whether you can ever get fully there, or
even if it is important to do so, I have too little knowledge to cast a
comment.
> > 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.
But, by making one's underlying assumptions open, one can examine the claim
without dismissing the politicization. One can also examine the claim
without concern over the source. Are we "biased" people? Perhaps. But if we
talk about ideas and not people, perhaps we can overcome some of that. But,
perhaps not.
> > [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.
There are more collectivist (although it is not really a fair use of this
word) projects underway (consider the entirety of the open-source movement
in software development, it gains ground every year) than before in our
history. I think this is because people are questioning the covert
assumptions of "me me me" inherent in our modern system. But, I could be
wrong. :-)
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 Jul 10 2005 - 18:48:24 BST