Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society

From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 11 2005 - 21:48:30 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society"

    Greetings Mark,

    [Arlo to Platt]
    >The whole point of it being covert is that by definition it is
    >internalized and invisible <snip>
    >
    >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.

    >msh 7-11-05:
    >I think there's an element missing from this discussion. In addition
    >to covert and overt coercion, there's another more direct way in
    >which people may be persuaded to act against Quality: Lie to them
    >from trusted positions, or deprive them of accurate information, or
    >make the retrieval of accurate information so difficult and time-
    >consuming that very few people are able to do it and still have
    >something like a normal life.

    Of course. And thanks for pointing these out. (In my defense I can only say
    that I've said the ones I mentioned "are just a few" :-)) But your point is
    well-taken and quite correct: people make Quality decisions based on
    information that has been presented to them.

    "Trusted positions" deceit, I'd argue, is related to the larger problem of
    "blindness" that is a covert coercive force in the internalization of an
    ideology. Hence the "everything Bush says is truth, everything Clinton said
    was a lie" (to use one example) dichotomy. Blindness to this covert
    coercive force is one thing critical inquiry strives to overcome. But you
    know this, and I am preaching to the choir.

    But it is worth noting that "information lapses" can occur from the
    deliberate withholding, manipulation, or reformation of information by
    people (such as in cover-ups, politicized discourse and the like), and by
    willful dismissals of available information occurring as the result of
    "ideological blindness". Both, perhaps you'd agree, are quite prevalent in
    our society.

    >These three related methods of persuasion are usually interwoven.
    >Anyone who evaluates the political deceptions that went on during the
    >recent runup to war, in both the US and Britain, will have a clear
    >understanding of what I mean. As will anyone who thinks about the
    >way commercial advertising works.

    Agreed. I think it bears much to the covert coercions of institutionalized
    power.

    >This is why, in a moral society, there will be easy access to the
    >full spectrum of ideas and information on any issue of public
    >concern, including political and consumer policy. This in turn means,
    >among other things, that wealth and power cannot be allowed do
    >control the public airwaves, or to dominate the free press.

    Completely agree.

    >People are not stupid, but, without accurate information on which to
    >base our decisions, any of us may unintentionally decide to act
    >against our own best interests.

    Very well said.

    >arlo before:
    >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.
    >
    >msh 7-11-05:
    >I agree. It's not possible to obtain mathematical certainty about
    >any historical or even scientific "facts." I don't know any sane
    >person who says it is. This does not mean we cannot approach
    >certainty on these issues. If 999 people are running out of a
    >theater screaming "Fire" we can reasonably make the obvious
    >inference, even if the thousandth person is only complaining about
    >the popcorn. This is why it is so important to have for our
    >evaluation the widest possible spectrum of ideas and observations.

    I like the words "approaching certainty". It emphasizes degrees between the
    otherwise dichotomous "unsupported opinion" and "absolute fact". Thanks for
    that.

    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 : Mon Jul 11 2005 - 22:25:28 BST