RE: MD WORLDS WORST APOLOGY

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Aug 17 2005 - 21:46:39 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD Why Platt, Sam, Matt K, Scott and Erin must go"

    Mark and Erin (Platt, Ant, DMB and Sam mentioned)

    16 Aug. Mark wrote to Erin who had written:

    > > My favorite teachers that taught politics were ones that you couldn't
    > > tell what their political stance was.....which is another reason why I
    > > am impressedwith Pirsig's writing. I think it is so funny that Platt and
    > > people like Ant, DMB, MSH bothalign their political views with Pirsig
    > > political views.

    Mark
    > Actually, I've developed my own political views by reading history. I
    > also read the metaphysics of quality and see in it, particularly in
    > the hierarchy of morality, a lot that just happens to square with my
    > views. In other words, I don't see my politics in Pirsig's
    > philosophy. I don't need to. What I see is an edifice of thought
    > that in many ways corresponds with my own. I don't need father
    > Pirsig's approval for my opinions.

    > The whole purpose of debate between the Old Plant and me, say, is to
    > discover the logic and evidence underpinning our two very different
    > views of the world, and sometimes the MOQ comes into the picture, but
    > it isn't the whole picture, for either one of us.

    First of all Mark, please stop this foolish "Old Plant" game.

    Now to Erin's comment about the MOQ supporting different
    political views. For years (seemingly) DMB and Platt kept an
    American liberal-vs-conservative dispute going which was great
    fun with two such sharp pens, but after the London bombings
    (with DMB away) and Mark and Ian (chiefly) shouldering the
    liberal cause it really took off.

    Platt's thesis that the terror is a biological vs social struggle was
    not met with so much MOQ arguments as the usual political
    correctness of it being a result of American intervention (which it
    may well be, but in a different sense) or - even more correct -
    poverty, political oppression etc. I tried a few times to oppose the
    said thesis, but it was obviously more fun to drop all metaphysics
    and go along the usual left/right political axis.

    OK, Platt's use of a particular LILA quote was met by Anthony
    and others, some even forwarded the (IMO) correct view of it
    being a society vs intellect struggle, but this never really went
    home because it raises some dilemma for MOQ orthodoxy that
    sees intellect as the level where everything resides - not least the
    MOQ itself - so what values can such an intellect represent that
    society abhors?

    The answer is of course that intellect is all about thwarting
    society. In LILA it says

        The Metaphysics of Quality says that what is meant by
        "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs.-
        society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
        control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of
        travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by
        consent-these "human rights" are all intellect-vs.-society
        issues.

    Pirsig says here that the moral of intellect is to be free of social
    control thus the SOL is confirmed again. Societal control is of
    course control of the human individual and to be free the
    individual needs to become an autonomous subject (that a
    subject necessarily must live in an objective reality follows) Do
    the SOL touch the Eudaimonic idea Sam?

    All the above listed intellectual patterns contain this quality, and
    judging by Pirsig's words there can't be any exemption to the rule
    and I cannot figure one intellectual pattern that is not about the
    same issue: The subject finding out that objectively seen it is free
    ... unless one reverts to the "manipulation of symbols" intellect
    but it has zero bearing on the intellect-vs-society issue.

    Finally, it's plain that Militant Islam is about social value
    defending itself against intellectual "corruption" and that this
    corruption is conveyed by USA is also clear. As is it that the
    MOQ itself can't be part of intellect. It's purpose is to free
    existence from intellect's control.

    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 : Wed Aug 17 2005 - 21:56:49 BST