From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Aug 07 2005 - 19:21:05 BST
Hi Arlo
5 Aug. you wrote:
> Bo/Ian,
> [Bo had said]
> > "USA is solidly anchored in - what we in MOQ-speak call -
> > intellectual value. Social value's most prominent pattern - religion
> > - is brought under control and has become a personal "faith" not a
> > political force. thank God."
> [Ian replied]
> > Would that that were remotely true.
> [Arlo]
> Amen, Ian.
If the American commitment to (what in the MOQ is described
as) intellectual values is doubted ..phew! USA naturally retreated
to social patterns of patriotism ..etc. after the 11. Sep attacks and
the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib may not be all in accordance to
the human rights, but the mere fact that it creates problems for
the administration is the proof.
> The way I see it is that Bo is committing a gross oversimplification.
> Foundationally, it appears, that the only "social value" is
> "religion". That is, once a society throws off the shakles of
> theocracy it is ipso facto solidly anchored in intellectual value.
I have tried umpteen times to explain the so-called Semitic type
religions as relatively late social patterns, in contrast to the old
ones - the myths - which in spite of being god-centered had not
developed to a stage when this was considered a "faith" where
skepticism was possible. ....and of course in contrast to Buddhism
which has transcended not only the social, but the also the
intellectual level. IMO
There may even be an older social reality - the animistic -
displayed by tribes still found in remote places. Who has no
hierarchy of gods nor an abode for them, but where all existence
is animated or magical.
> IMHO, self-identifying with a call to nation-state patterns is as
> solidly "social level" as doing so to "religion". Now, if someone
> self-identifies by saying something along the lines of... "Hi, I'm
> Arlo. I'm an egalitaria (or constitutionalist, or pragmatist, or
> quantum theorist...).", then I can see how someone might claim that
> their primary self-identification is with intellectual patterns and
> not social patterns. Because, none of these things are the "property"
> of a social-level nation state.
OK, we are of all patterns, the social one not the least and as
said after the Sep.11 attacks America retreated to the social level
of patriotism and willingness to sacrifice to protect their "way of
life" as is the Spaniards and Brits now ...and will be allexposed to
a threat to the intellect-dominated society. Even in my small pond
surveillance of public places and other non-freedom
measurements has been introduced. But should this madness
disappear things will go back to normal.
> The problem with this oversimplification is also that it politicizes
> the hierarchy. It conflates nation-state politics with intellectual
> patterns that are never affiliated or tied to nation-state politics.
If not seeing the value levels as having any impact on society or
politics - just being an "ivory tower" furniture - then again ...phew!
Now, politics as an activity different from philosophy is possibly
an intellectual fall-out too. Why I see the MOQ as "non-intellect".
> For example, would one self-identify with "I'm a representational
> democratist", it identifies with intellectual patterns found in many
> nation-states, rather than semantically tieing that pattern to any one
> particular nation. This can be further examined by realizing that the
> same patterns of governance are found in both Canada and the U.S. (to
> take an obvious example out of many), and yet when one person
> identifies as a "Canadian", and another as an "American", they are not
> really saying the same thing, are they?
It depends on distance. When at home the Canadians makes a
great fuss about not being Americans, but when in "Faroffistan"
they see the common value platform ...with Europe too.
> And, as Ian had pointed out, it neglects the reality of "American"
> culture, that is firmly rooted in adherence to social-level patterns,
> whether they are "religious" in nature or not.
As said USA's freedom has made it a happy hunting ground of
various sects and "congregations", and some may go to extreme
acts - in this sense they are as social-motivated as the Sep.11
"pilots", some plain nut-cases, but the SYSTEM won't tolerate
this.
> Bo, I do appreciate
> where you are trying to go with this, "democracies" are more moral
> than "theocracies". Absolutely. But when we allow this to be tied to
> the social-level nation-state, we glorify static social level
> patterns, not intellectual ones. Much better to say "I'm a
> democratist", then one is certainly outside social-pattern
> identifications.
As said, the "social value" term is ambiguous, almost as much as
"intellect", but enough for now.
BTW Arlo, thanks for your well-edited posts. So many make it
impossible to see who writes what in response to whom. It looks
like you use the "Pegasus Mail" ;-)
Bo
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 Aug 07 2005 - 22:31:10 BST