From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Thu Aug 04 2005 - 03:26:17 BST
Mark SH,
msh 08-03-05:
But the simple fact is that Giants can and have been defeated on
their own terms. Slavery was abolished. Many of the oppressive
tendencies of Big Business were dramatically curbed (temporarily, at
least) during the 30's, 40's, 50's. The Civil Rights movement. The
Anti-war movements of the 60's and 70's. The feminist movement.
Ecological movements. It's just a mistake to claim that social
progress cannot result from activism, or that social change means
only shifting one opressor for another.
Scott:
The Giant is still there (here). Yes, things have changed, and some of that
change is for the better. Some is for the worse. Universities, in my
opinion, have gotten worse.
I'm not actually against activism, rather it is a matter that working on
oneself is more important. It is in fact impossible to literally do nothing
socially unless one becomes a complete hermit. And what one does can help or
it can hurt, and helping is better -- all else being equal. The trouble
typically arises when one helps out of principle, and the history of statist
communism shows this. The do-gooders got power, but power attracts the
corruptible. Meanwhile, principle has come to dominate both American
political parties, to the detriment of the nation.
msh 08-03-05:
In fact, when he dismisses the movements of the 60's as spontaneous
reactions against the social AND intellectual levels, Pirsig is
simply WRONG, or guilty of immense oversimplification. The fact that
many people on this list keep repeating his view is a little
unsettling. There was nothing spontaneous or anti-intellectual about
any of the movements I mentioned above; nor is there anything anti-
intellectual about the current movements against so called "free
trade" globilization efforts, and against the current war in Iraq.
Scott:
Pirsig and I were referring to the hippies. You are referring to others of
that era, such as the New Left. Each camp (broadly speaking) didn't have
much use for the other. They both had their good and bad points.
For the sake of argument, let's say you're correct in saying "nor is there
anything anti-intellectual about the current movements against so called
"free trade" globilization efforts, and against the current war in Iraq."
Would you agree in saying there is nothing anti-intellectual in current
movements for free trade, and for the war? Just curious. What about the
position that there isn't enough data to decide which side to come down on?
- Scott
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 : Thu Aug 04 2005 - 03:31:37 BST