From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 15 2005 - 04:29:59 BST
[Platt]
Why? Because you repeat your charge that both conservatives and liberals
are evil, as you did in this very post, as follows:
[Arlo]
What I've said was (and you know this very well, but we'll play the game) that
(1) both those who call themselves "liberals" and those who call themselves
"conservatives" are more interested in distracting the dialogue using
propaganda and fear, and are more concerned with party-supremecy than with
realistic, critical inquiry into the problems we face (do you really, really
feel that on every issue there is the conservatives trump Good and the liberals
propose Evil?), and (2) that modern liberalism and conservatism as ideologies
are about 1mm apart on the political spectrum, and yet their so-called
adherents use outrageous rhetorical tactics to make it seem like they are
antonymic poles.
I no more think Karl Rove is evil than I think Hillary Clinton is. They are both
politicians, more concerned with their own power than solving any real problem.
And, as I've said repeatedly, I agree with certain conservative points (gun
ownership), and I agree with certain liberal points (universal health care).
Hardly something I'd do if I considered them "evil".
But I also agree with certain observations made by Marx, and I agree with others
made by Michael Savage. But these things can never enter into the cultural
dialogue, because Heavens, no! we have to fight this idiotic war between
"conservatives" and "liberals". And deal with rhetorical tactics to distract
away from that. Like accusing me of calling conservatives and liberals evil.
You say I'm an "independent", and then I'm not sure but somehow point to this as
a strict party dogma platform? Can you name for me the issues of the
Independant Party that all members parrot about? But, of course, you have to
ridicule any position that opposes the notion that everything the conservative
party does is Pure Good, don't you. Or that, Heaven, forbid! maybe the liberals
are right on some topic! Or maybe, just maybe, that the solution to a certain
problem lies outside the absurdly tiny and irrelevant conservative/liberal
warzone. That's a little bit of a rant, you'll excuse me for that, please.
In reply to my disdain that the modern dialogue makes it seem like only the
"polar" views of conservatives and liberals are real solutions...
[Platt]
Please list other options that anybody is proposing that anyone is taking
seriously.
[Arlo]
You make my point. Thanks. No one takes any other option seriously. Because all
we have are these two party platforms, and they are mostly the same, and
neither really cares about solutions, only continuing their power.
Or, I ask again. Do you really think that every problem, every political,
cultural and social question is best answered "do what the conservatives say"?
They got it all right? Nothing wrong? There is nothing liberalism got right?
It's completely wrong, and everything the democrats propose is simply wrong,
period. And nobody outside of these two parties has anything to say either.
They're all wrong. They only Voice of Righteousness is the conservative party
voice, on every issue, on every topic. Is that what you are saying?
[Platt]
My point precisely. "Many susceptible to the type of deceptive,
manipulative rhetoric of distraction used by both parties." Of course, you
are not deceived, but "many" are, i.e., many are incapable of critical
thought except Arlo who has somehow, in spite of bad schools, managed to
attain critical thinking skills. Now maybe you don't mean it that way, but
that's how it comes across. In any case, note your attack on those evil parties
again because they use "deceptive, manipulative rhetoric."
[Arlo]
Well, since Pirsig felt the same way, that people were producing and consuming
cheap quality-free products because they had no dialogue with which to counter
the social force of production and consumption, than I think I'm okay with my
position. Pirsig's position was to introduce into the dialogue a way of seeing
the world that freed them from the blindness produced by a culture devoid of
seeing Quality. All I'm saying is the same thing holds true in politics as does
in consumerism.
Or, do you think that Pirsig was calling everyone in America "stupid" for not
seeing Quality? Do you agree that he was right to place the blame in the
cultural restrictions on the dialogue? Or, do you think he was wrong in ZMM,
that everyone was seeing Quality, and he was insulting them by suggesting
otherwise? Was Pirsig suggesting that he had superior observation skills to see
something they were unable to see? Did he attain "critical thinking skills"
somehow?
Tell me, Platt, how was it that Pirsig was able to see this malady and no one
else was. Hmmmmm???
[Platt, who used Pirsig's description of the Social Giant, described in Lila
with examples of New York City, as Marxist]
Yes. Please relay your interpretation to Ant who thinks Pirsig was talking
only about New York, not social patterns in general. .
[Arlo]
Its funny you continue to defend this analogy. Pirsig was making the outright
claim that social-level patterns devour biological-level patterns for their
own, evolutionary greater, needs.
NYC was the "giant of his dreams", made clear in Lila as perhaps the greatest of
the giants. And yet this is capitalist America. The point is that the Giant
exists as readily in capitalist America as Stalinist Russia. If you disagree,
why do you think NYC was his prime examplar of the Giant? Why not choose
Moscow? Or Leningrad?
What amazes me is that you quote the same sections that Pirsig uses to show that
social-level patterns are at a higher-moral level than biological beings as
somehow something we could avoid if we embrace capitalism? Strange?
So, I related the Giant to NYC, as did Ant, as would anyone who read Lila and
saw that (1) Pirsig was talking about NYC when he talked about the Giant, and
(2) how it made no sense that you equated the Giant with Marxism.
[Platt previously]
Maybe Arlo finds the social patterns of the Giant appealing, but to me
they mean one thing -- you guessed it -- gulags, as was demonstrated when
intellect put the Giant's patterns into practice on a grand scale.
[Arlo now]
Maybe you can tell me how, if modern, dynamic, capitalist NYC was the Great
Giant of Pirsig's dreams, that you could find the patterns of the Giant
unappealing?
[Arlo said of Marx's agreement with modern conservatives]
"Abolish them," Platt, he'd say, "I support you. Let's end them all right
now. And what do you think would happen next?"
[Platt]
Abolish them and take away all that I own for redistribution to the
undeserved and to satiate the Giant? Thanks for no thanks.
[Arlo]
Are you saying that suddenly you feel these program should remain? To placate
the revolution that would certainly emerge if you were to remove them? You
know, suddenly I am all in the conservative camp on this. Yes, from now on I am
arguing for the complete dismantlement of ALL social/labor/healthcare programs!
I'm sure the "undeserved" will be grateful you're opting to keep the band-aids
in place.
Arlo
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 Oct 15 2005 - 05:03:43 BST