From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jul 10 2005 - 22:40:33 BST
Hi Arlo,
> 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.)
I agree except I would change the word "coercion" to "influence." Would
you object to that modification?
> >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.
Well, in my opinion he speaks a generalized truth. :-) But, I get your
point.
> >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.
Paste my answers to the questions posed by MSH here. Technically I don't
know how to combine this post with the one I just sent answering his
questions.
> > > [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.
I wholeheartedly agree that underlying assumptions be made available. In
fact, as I've said before, the purpose of philosophy to me is to search
for underlying assumptions and to check their validity both empirically
and logically.
> >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.
I think you've hit the nail with your emphasis on underlying assumptions.
I'll try to keep that in mind in future conversations. I'll put a note
above my computer screen as a reminder.
> 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. :-)
The advances in communication technology have made such collective
endeavors (or perhaps "cooperative" is a better word) possible. Even a
"me, me, me" like me can see the benefits, such as this site provides.
Nor do I see any harm in Amish collective barn building. :-)
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 - 23:18:40 BST