From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Oct 09 2005 - 20:43:23 BST
Marsha, NewGuy and all interested MOQers:
dmb says:
I'd like to offer some help with the levels, newguy. Rather than talk about
medical ethics, however, I'd like to juggle things a bit and use Platt's
reactionary reaction in the "Home" thread. It seems like it might be useful
as a "real life" application of Pirsig's social/intellectual distinction. It
would take about one minute to investigate the web site that tickled Marsha
(and me), but that's probably not even necessary. I think we all understand
that American conservatives tend to view the UN, international laws against
things like genocide, pollution and torture, or anything that has to do with
global justice with great contempt. As usual, Platt is the perfect parrot,
um, I mean spokesman for the conservative cause...
pholden reacted to the notion that the earth is one home for all people:
"Definitely one to ignore as pure propaganda from the fear mongers on the
far left to justify their belief that we have to "get along" with
terrorists. ...Remember: America's enemies are enemies of the free world and
the intellectual moral level."
dmb says:
Although there is a weak attempt to dress up this attitude in Pirsig's
terms, to glorify it as the most moral and most evolved cause, the briefest
of inspections will show that it is quite the opposite. With voices like
this around, its no wonder there is so much confusion about this issue. Its
only natural that you would have questions, new guy.
What we're really looking at in this anti-Global attitude is a
quasi-religious, mythic conception of the United States wherein "we" are
always on the side of God and Freedom and our enemies are always on the side
of Evil and Tyranny. What we see here is a weak attempt to make an
intellectual case for some rather common nativist prejudices. They're social
level values dressed up in some ill-fitting costume. I would very nearly
insist that you take another look at the 22nd chapter of Lila, where the
conflict between social and intellectual values is explained in terms of
20th century political conflicts. Things have not changed so much. The
conflict between fascism and democratic values still marches on. I'd agree
that today's Islamic Fundamentalists are comparable to the fascists of WWII
insofar as they are both, anti-Modern and anti-intellectual, but I'd point
out that today's Christan Fundamentalists are also comparable to those
fascists. No religion is required, exactly. All it takes is that mythic
nationalism, that narrow view that me and mine are right with God and
everybody else is somehow inferior or unworthy. But from an intellectual
perspective, watching George fight Osama over who's got the better God is
like watching twin brothers fight over who's got a tougher Dad. It would be
funny if it didn't cost so many lives and limbs and thousands of millions of
dollars. That's happening in the real world, and I that seeing it as a
conflict of values is quite helpful in getting at the heart of the conflict.
Otherwise, there are only surface changes and the same conflict will
re-emerge in a new costume. And speaking of fascism, its interesting that
Platt should use the word to describe an openly political site even while
parroting the propaganda produced by the warmongers he's defending. One does
not need to search very far to support this contention. Entire books have
been written about this well-oiled machine and its in today's paper...
"...Federal auditors from the Government Accountability Office declared that
the administration had violated the law against 'covert propaganda' when it
repeatedly hired fake reporters (and one supposedly real pundit, Armstrong
Williams) to plug its policies in faux news reports and editorial commentary
produced at taxpayers' expense. " Frank Rich, New York Times OP-ED page.
dmb continues:
This administration's penchant for propaganda is consistant with the social
level's quasi-mythic thinking. The belief system needs to be protected
against the forces of Modernity and this results in a generalized
anti-intellectual stance toward just about everything. Facts are not allowed
to get in the way, so that global warming becomes a controversail opinion,
evolution is just a theory, we could still find those WMD, the rich need a
tax cut and Jesus only turns the other cheek when he's reaching around to
grab another can of whoop-ass. (Apologies to the robbed comedian.) The
social level reactionary forces, whether they be yesterday's Spanish
fascists or today's Islamic fascists, there is this strong tendency to
insulate their beliefs from the facts and to propagate simple messages
through repitition, to create the reality that they'd perfer to live in
through a kind of narrow-minded self hypnosis. That's why they run their
campaigns on emotional social issues and use smear-the-other-guy tactics
rather than defend anything that resembles an idea or a principle. For them
"rights" mean MY rights, not those crazy foriegners, and freedom's just
another word for MY way of life, not theirs. We even hear radio preachers
say Islam is a Satanic religion. Oh, please. It usually involves a rather
grandiose vision of "me and mine" and tends to insulates itself from any
perspectives that might challenge this national and/or racial supremacy,
this mythic beleif in the inherent superiority of one's own tribe, religion,
gang, party or some other sectarian group. Its always rather unprincipled in
this respect.
"The best way to get the news is from objective sources, and the most
objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening
in the world." President Bush to Brit Hume on Fox News. (According to Rich.)
dmb continues:
This is a hilarious one-liner, but I did not include it just to get a laugh.
It reaveals that insulated mind-set so beautifully, don't you think?
Imagine a little boy who tells you that none of the girls at school think
he's cool, but it doesn't matter because his coolness is measured by a more
objective standard, his mom. Now imagine that little boy is in charge of a
global empire and the largest armies in history. The fact that he's talking
about objectivity on Fox news is more than enough already, but to then
assert, with a straight face, that his loyal staff gives it to him like it
really is. Again, it would be funny if it weren't so deadly...
"The truth only began to penetrate four days after the storm's arrival
(Hurricane Katrina) - and only then, according to Newsweek, because an
adviser, Dan Bartlett, asked the president to turn away from his usual
'objective sources' and instead watch a DVD compilation of actual evening
news reports." Rich in the same OP-ED piece.
dmb concludes:
I'll remind you that the men in charge of Homeland Security and FEMA were
equally oblivious, as they both revealed on national news. I'll remind you
that we are not just talking about normal, everyday ignorance. We're all
guilty of that to some degree or another. No. Here we are talking about
people who are responsible for getting all the facts, people who are paid to
know what's going on and then do something about it. We're talking about
willful ignorance at the highest levels of responsibility, who are charged
with handling matters of life and death. And they don't even know what's on
the evening news. This is criminal negligence. Its lethal cluelessness. And
this is just one of the most spectacular examples of how these people think
and operate. I'm sure there must be thousands of smaller, less deadly,
relatively un-noticed examples of this anti-intellectaul and sometimes
downright delusional perspective and thousands of examples of the smaller
cruelties that always seem to flow from them.
If I may summarize my central assertions; Most of the political conflicts
for the last century or so can be explained as a conflict between the newer
intellectual level, which seeks to control society, and the social level
forces that view this evolutionary process as a threat. There are many
manifestations of this reactionary impulse because it is an unprincipled
attempt to preserve one's tradition and those traditions vary so widely.
Japanese fascist is going to look different that Italian fascism simply
becasue the Japanese are not Italian. The Japanese fascists are not
interested in defending Italian culture, ressurecting the glory Rome or
preserving Catholicism. They have their own culture, glory and religion to
preserve, so their brand of fascism will take on a different shape.
Likewise, when fascism in America will be very, very American. It'll talk
about freedom and democracy, but it will do so in a quasi-mythic and
unprincipled way. The war, for example, is said to be about spreading
democracy and ending tyranny, but those are precisely the principles that
were violated in prosecuting the war and the UN has had to tell the Iraqis
the Americans are tampering with democracy in Iraq to elect their favorite
guy and that free and fair elections are not going to happen until the
American vote-riggers are excluded from the process. It'll talk about
freedom and justice and rights even while it stomps on the Geneva
conventions and pisses on the Koran. And then it'll award the stompers and
the pissers with medals and more power.
Can you tell that I'm a little upset about this, new guy? Its not your
questions that upset me, its the answers.
Maybe I should have taken up the medical ethics case instead. But as I view
things, the political debates about that issue are a sub-set of this larger
conflict between the levels. It'll break down in pretty much the same way,
with some people taking sides with the biological sciences and/or human
rights and some people taking sides with traditional morality in various
ways.
Thanks.
dmb
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 : Mon Oct 10 2005 - 09:19:36 BST