From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 03:42:56 BST
Hi Scott, and all,
On 3 Aug 2005 at 20:26, Scott Roberts wrote:
Scott:
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 08-05-2005:
I don't see how acting on "principles" automatically translates to
low-quality action. And your rejection of communist principles just
because some brutal guys called themselves communists places you
squarely in Platt's camp, shown a hundred times to be made up of
leaky tents. I'm a little surprised.
As for principle dominating both American parties, if you mean the
principle of subjugation to the bidding of power and wealth, then I
couldn't agree more. Is that the principle you're talking about?
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 over-simplification. 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.
msh 08-05-2005:
What bad ideas came form the New Left, in your opinion?
There was a lot of overlap between "hippies" and the New Left, as a
matter of fact. The fact that Pirsig didn't mention the New Left in
his one-sided disparagement of the 60's only supports my point that
he was going to the wrong parties. Rather than setting up the straw-
man stoners and cop-haters, he could have attended parties with so-
called "hippies" and people like Rap Brown, Robert Lowell, Tom
Hayden, Eldredge Cleaver, Norman Mailer, the Berrigan brothers,
Chomsky, Zinn, Parenti, et al.
It's Pirsig's simplistic dismissal of the 60's as some kind of social
degeneration I object to.
Scott:
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.
msh 8-05-2005:
Fair enough. There is nothing completely anti-intellectual in
anything humans do. All people have ideas, but, at this point in our
evolution, it seems clear to me that most people are Bio-Dominant or
Social-Dominant. So the useful question is, how do the various B-D,
S-D, and I-D ideas compare on the quality scale?
But this useful question is one that BD-SD people in positions of
power are not interested in answering. This is why so much of what
power does is done in secret or extremely low-profile: Economic and
imperialist war plans, trade talks, corporate strategy meetings.
There is no dearth of intelligent, knowledgeable people who could
intellectually challenge these powerful planners; but such people are
rarely heard from in the corporate-government (BD-SD) dominated
media. Why do you suppose that is?
Scott:
What about the position that there isn't enough data to decide which
side to come down on?
msh 08-05-2005:
There's plenty of current and historical data to decide. The reason
you and most others don't have this data is directly related to my
answer above. And, sometimes, really smart people spend a lot of
time assiduously counting angels on pinheads.
But you can get the data. Why not start with the Understanding Power
thread from December of last year? Better yet, read the book itself,
and download the free 500 pages of notes, references, and other
documentation. Or read Profits Over People. Or, if Chomsky's not
your cup of tea, read Zinn's People's History, or absolutely anything
written by Michael Parenti. Or check the Information Clearing House
web site; or TruthOut.org, or DemocracyNow,org, or MediaLens.org.
The data is there. You're just not gonna find it on CNN.
Anyway, I'm glad you've expressed an interest here. I've always
enjoyed our exchanges.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
“The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what
Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda
accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.”
-- Michael Parenti
"The modern susceptibility to conformity and obedience to authority
indicates that the truth endorsed by authority is likely to be accepted as
such by a majority of the people."
-- David Edwards, MediaLens.org
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 : Sat Aug 06 2005 - 06:02:22 BST