Re: MD Individuals and Collectives

From: C.L. Everett (seaelle@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Sep 17 2005 - 00:09:46 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    Hey Platt,

    On 9/10/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:

    > Hi C.L,

    > I have no problem being called a right-winger, a conservative, a
    > reactionary, a neocon or whatever adjective you want to use to describe
    > someone who holds individual liberty indispensable in political theory.
    > I'm surprised by your defensiveness. If the shoe fits, why not wear it
    > with pride?

    I simply don't believe labels are descriptive enough or really very
    useful without clear and limited definitions attached. Honestly, I
    don't know what you mean when you call someone a leftist or a Marxist.
     Not really. I might have some vague sense but the first thing that
    registers is that you have identified them as wrong, as a member of an
    opposing team and I wonder at the point of that. Neither do I believe
    humanity can be sorted into left/right categories. Life is too rich
    to be collapsed or fixed on a continuum with caps on either end. I'll
    bet that you find many on this forum who don't hold both conservative
    and liberal views. As I see it, that's the way the world is going.
    The old left/right lines aren't holding up. Lines only hold up in an
    SOM paradigm, anyway and I thought we were past all that here.
      
    > I talk to them. Obviously you don't read the posts with msh, Arlo, Ian
    > and others. But I can't help it if sometimes they don't like what I have
    > to say.

    I see that you do, at times, have wonderful discussions. That is why
    I am asking you to curb what I see as a bad habit that doesn't serve
    you well. Maybe if you post less and thought a little more you won't
    need to reach for the bat so often.

    > Do you not agree that compared to socialism, capitalism is dynamic?. And
    > what about intellect having no provision for morals? Instead of just
    > making wild assertions, maybe you could try to persuade us why Pirsig is
    > incorrect.

    I don't see dynamism as restricted to a particular "ism". DQ is
    bigger than any of them. It is quality's animating force. There's
    quality in the other "isms". Perfect, absolute Quality? Everything
    is inside of that.

    Besides, I have yet to see any clear explanation that the individual
    intellect is separate (not influenced or driven by) from that
    individuals biology. Too high a percentage of what mankind
    accomplishes on a single day is driven almost exclusively by
    biological needs/desires, especially its capitalistically motivated
    ones. Just today one of our members unsubscribed citing the
    "addictive" nature of this forum. Can you prove this forum is not
    "addictive"? And show me where the line between the idea and the
    mental masturbation is drawn?

    C.L.

    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 Sep 17 2005 - 00:27:22 BST