From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Oct 15 2005 - 16:23:07 BST
> [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.
Well, I thought you considered those concerned with their own power to be
evil. Nor do I see anything you've written above to convince me that you
think liberals and/or conservatives are in any way good.
> 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".
So I take it then that neither liberals or conservatives are all bad, that
in fact, some of the rhetoric as you call it is beneficial.
> 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.
As I said, I didn't see any qualifications in your condemnations of the
conservative and liberal parties in your first paragraph above or the
statement referred to in a previous post. I got into trouble with Ian on
the same account.
> 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.
You're excused. Like you I do not consider all things conservatives do to
be good, or all things liberals do to be bad, although in the latter case
I'm hard pressed to find examples. :-)
> [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.
You see, when you say that both conservatives and liberals are only
interested in "continuing their power" I get the distinct impression you
consider that bad (evil).
> 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?
No. But given the choice between the two, I'll take the conservatives.
After all, in the voting booth (which I assume you are in favor of) one
cannot select from a whole bunch of nuanced position. It's either up or
down, yes or no. (Apologies to Ian for this democratic dichotomy.)
> [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???
Beats me. As I've said, I think Pirsig in this case painted with too broad
a brush. Nor do I think he really believes a free market is a "malady." He
said just the opposite in Lila.
> [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?
Because in the same chapter Pirsig goes on to explain how the Giant is
held at bay in the West by the Dynamic free market. Remember he compared
dynamic NYC with those dull socialist cities. Why? Freedom my friend.
> 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?
That's because you don't seem to see the connection between capitalism,
Dynamic Quality and Intellectual Quality, e.g., freedom of speech, freedom
of the press, freedom to own property, etc.
> [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.
If you are saying that all those programs ought to be abolished and that
Marx's idea to abolish private property should also be dropped, then I'm
with you. So long as I can keep what's mine, like my brushes and paints,
and you can can keep what's yours, like your motorcycle, I'd be happy.
Whatever makes you think there would be a revolution if those welfare
programs you mentioned were phased out, especially if the money wasted on
them was returned to the citizens who are forced to pay for them?
Platt
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 - 16:38:25 BST