From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 02:21:54 BST
Hi Sam,
On 19 Aug 2005 at 13:27, Sam Norton wrote:
Hi Mark,
Can you come up with an understanding of 'conservatism' that isn't
pejorative in some way, ie which doesn't automatically equate 'conservative'
with 'immoral'?
msh:
Not as long as a conservative's first reaction is to resist change,
rather than analyze and honestly discuss it. If that shoe doesn't
fit you, then all you'll get is a few blisters. : -)
David M started this thread with a very specific question for the
self-proclaimed "conservatives" on this list. You responded using
your understanding of the word, and I disagreed with you, within the
very narrow context of David's original question.
I've said a dozen times that, within broader discussions of politics,
philosophy, history, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have been
so badly abused as to be devoid of meaning and, in fact, serve only
to limit, not expand, the honest investigation of ideas.
sam:
Equating conservatism with anti-DQ forms of SQ seems no more
productive than equating left-wing thought with degenerate DQ.
msh:
Again, I was responding within the context of this thread, wherein I
still say that, generally speaking, a conservative's resistance to
change is less MOQ-healthy than a progressive's willingness to try
things. But, even here, let's drop the words: when faced with a low
quality situation (slavery, institutionalized prejudice, sweatshops)
it's better to change than not to change. Intelligence can anticipate
and prepare for possible negative effects but, if by some chance some
unanticipated negative occurs, it can be handled in turn.
sam:
So either we come up with an understanding of political terms which
gives them both (or however many) an acceptable place in political
discourse, or else we abandon the political discussions on the MoQ
and just go to Rush Limbaugh or ZNet for confirmation of our
perspectives.
msh:
I say let's abandon the terms, at least in threads where they are not
part of the subject line. We don't need these terms to discuss
politics or anything else on this forum. What we need to do is read
Limbaugh and Znet, and everything in between, compare what we read
with our own world experience, perform our own analysis, applying MOQ
principles where appropriate, and, through honest discussion, share
in the experience and analyses of others. I think this is our only
chance, short of unverifiable mystical revelation, of coming up with
a respectable approximation of reality.
sam:
On top of which, how does 'intelligence' show anything, especially where
politics is concerned?
msh:
See above. Politics is simply the social engine in the relationship
between power and history. Intelligence can be applied to the study
of politics, as well as to any other third level phenomenon. In
fact, my understanding of the MOQ is that we are morally obligated to
do so.
Seems to me.
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
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government
ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public
liberty."
-- John Adams
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 20 2005 - 03:58:24 BST