From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 03 2005 - 05:26:56 GMT
dmb said to Matt:
...The orignal problem as I introduced it is the historical predicament of
THE WEST. We disagree about what the problem is IN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY. And
personally, I'm attracted to the MOQ because it addresses that problem. The
clash between science and religion, between Modernity and the reactionary
forces, that's the problem. The death of God, the rise of fascism and
fundamentalism, the rise of that value-free rationality and the alienation
of humanity from God, Nature and itself. That's the problem. ...That's what
I'm talking about. (And dmb quoted Pirsig as well as Wilber on this crisis;
"This is a massive and violent schism and rupture in the internal organ of
today's global culture, and this is exactly why many social analysts believe
that if some sort of reconciliation between science and religon is not
forthcoming, the future of humanity is, at best, precarious.")
Matt replied to dmb:
I'm somewhere in the middle, though compared to you DMB, I lean heavily
towards "What spiritual crisis?" But it only seems that way when I'm
compared to you, and because I think taking care of poverty is more
important then everyone discovering mysticism.
dmb says:
Is this just an attempt to change the subject or what? You couldn't even
think of a metaphysical or philosophical problem with which to change the
subject? I mean, the least you could do is say something about WHY this
spiritual cirisis doesn't rank in your book. And you've never yet addressed
the point I keep making about Pirsig's work, which is that these concerns
are central. Why is proverty more important than the precarious future of
humanity? How do creature comforts even compare to spirtual crisies or
historical predicaments? Apparently you have some kind of disease that makes
it impossible to keep your eye on the ball. Check it out....
Gav (taking the bait) said:
what if (re)discovering mysticism is the key to taking care of poverty (and
everything else)?
Matt replied:
I think it would be like arguing that finding God is a prerequisite to
taking care of poverty. ...Secularists like myself always scratch our head
and say, "Well, we've been becoming less theistic and more free and less
poverty stricken over the last 300 years, so I'm not quite sure how
plausible your suggestion really is that we'll get a big jump on the poverty
issue if we all became believing Christians."
dmb says:
See? Again, the issue is switched from mysticism to the church's record on
poverty and the rise of capitalism. Instead of asking Gav how mysticism
might be the key to taking care of poverty AND EVERYTHING ELSE, Matt
rejected an assertion Gav never made. Unbelieveable. Let's see what he does
with Ant's comments...
Anthony said:
...unlike Christianity, in the short run Pirsig's ideas can help you
personally with your motorcycle maintenance ...I also think it's a good
idea to distinguish between material poverty and
intellectual/spiritual poverty. For instance, materially the West is first
world status area (and, even then, not for everyone) while spiritually it
often seems like a third world one.
Matt replied:
...When I flesh out what I might mean by a "spiritual crisis," I usually do
so by saying that the democratic nations have a crisis in self-image. To
appropriate Auguste Comte's stages, I think we are still in the process,
after moving from the theological stage to metaphysical stage between the
Renaissance and Enlightenment, in moving from the metaphysical stage to the
secular stage. To use Gotthold Lessing's Christian terms of secularization,
after moving from God to Christ, I think we are still trying to move from
Christ to the Holy Spirit. I think there are a number of ways to put this
"coming to terms" with the movement of the age, but one is to say that we
still need to come to terms with Darwin, and another to say that we still
need to come to terms with Mill. The first suggests that we still haven't
fully naturalized our philosophical self-image by coming to terms with
Darwin's radical suggestion that we are continuous with nature. The second
suggests that we still haven't fully democratized our moral self-image by
coming to terms with Mill's radical suggestion that, as long as you ain't
hurtin' nobody, what you do in the privacy of your own home is nobody's
business.
dmb replies:
The spiritual cirisis is a matter of national self-images? Moving from
Chirst to the Holy Spirit is a process of secularization? The disturbing
thing about Darwin is that it makes us continuous with nature? I mean, isn't
Darwin thee icon of the conflict between religion and science? The
disturbing thing about Darwinism is that it challenges religious beliefs
about humanity's nature and origins. It conflicts with the idea that we were
created in God's image or even that there is a creator God. I realize all
this should be filed under the category titled, "No shit Sherlock", but this
is why I find your characterizaton of things to be so bizzare. Its passes
over the obvious, consensus view in favor of the rather implausible idea
that being "continuous with nature" is part of the crisis. I mean, isn't
this crisis marked by an alienation from nature? Isn't that exactly what
Pirsig says we lost? Hell, yes. He says Western man built "empires of
scientific capability" but lost "an understanding of what it is to be a part
of the world, and not an enemy of it." This is all quite bizzare and comes
on the heels of basically dismissing Ant's point with that same old
how-do-you-know? routine. "I'm not quite sure what ways there are to tell
the difference between spiritual poverty and spiritual well-being, at least
ways that could be agreed upon." This is where the topic gets switched to
the critera for truth and such, I suppose. I mean, I think we all understand
that economic conditions can be easily quantified and measured and that
spiritual development, like intellectual development, can not be handled so
easily or with the same tools. But I think Ant was saying something like
"man does not live by bread alone". I think he's just saying that material
wealth is not the only kind that matters. And who can argue with that? I
mean, the notion that Millsian privacy rights have caused a moral crisis is
an interesting idea, one I've entertained myself, but it doesn't seem to
address anything Ant said.
But wait, there's more. Here is my favorite. This is classic...
gav said:
poverty can't exist if you know yourself. poverty of the soul is the root
of all poverty. know thyself bro, as a kiwi socrates would have said.
Matt replied:
That's exactly the kind of Platonic conception of the self that I think we
should avoid, one that I think Anthony would also suggest we avoid. I think
it a very bad idea to suggest, for instance, that slavery occured because
African-Americans didn't know themselves. That racism occurs because people
don't know themselves well enough, that something deep down in themselves
would tell them not to be racist. I think it much more plausible to say
that getting to know your fellow human beings is more important to ending
racism then getting to know yourself. I think there are institutional
reasons for a lot of poverty and I don't think its the case that all people
need to do is look inside to see the truth, and then they'd decide to
eliminate some of the systemic problems. I think they need to look outside,
at the ghettos, or read books... I think people for the most part need to
have some basic comforts before they can know themselves, in any sense of
the idea.
dmb says:
This one is classic because it starts by pronouncing Gav guilty of having a
"Platonic conception of the self". Without saying how or why or what it
means, Matt just declares it as if it were a perfectly obvious. This move is
a real classic. That's why this Rortian critique can now be handled in a
single sentence, even as the first irrelevant sentence in a paragraph about
slavery and racism. Its also my favorite because Matt managed then to
misconstrue Gav's comment AND change the subject by the end of the second
sentence. This is incredibly efficient bullshitting. Not only has the topic
been switched from mysticism to proverty, but now to slavery and racism
instead of poverty. On top of that, he's put Gav on the defensive as if he'd
said slaves were slaves because they are poor in spirit, as if Gav were some
Victorian espousing prosperity theology. But I suspect Gav is talking about
the amoral systems that exploit people and the amoral people who run them. I
mean, isn't proverty, slavery and racism a problem of exploiters, slavers
and racists? Don't you think Gav is getting at the spiritual health of the
perpetrators of this misery and not the victims of it?
You can see this as a continuation of the "blame game" and otherwise dismiss
it if you like. Or you could take a look at yourself. This thread began as a
complaint about highjacking threads and switching topics - and look at what
you've done to that topic in only a few days. I posted last weekend and once
again identified the problem, the spiritual crisis in West, and I've come
back this weekend to find a discussion about poverty, slavery and racism. I
think you're responsible for that, Matt. Yes, I am casting blame, if that's
what you want to call it. I'm complaining about the way you conduct your
self here. Your style is as a clever guy with a large vocabulary, and you
like to point out how much you know about philosophy, but this haughty style
is always betrayed by the actual content, which is usually some kind of
emptiness that goes nowhere. I mean, all this talent and effort seems to be
in the service of a rather pointless and fruitless series of distractions.
It almost seems like you'd resent anything that had a point and wanted to go
somewhere, as if that would hurt your cause, which seems to be to insist
that there's no way of knowing anything or saying anything or holding any
beleifs without ironic shrugs. I mean, how do you get from the conflict
between science and religion to the spiritual health of slaves without
TRYING to avoid the topic?
And why should anyone need to connect poverty with mysticism just because
they are both causes for concern? Just because you think poverty is a more
important problem than the one that started this thread? Why can't poverty
just be a different concern, a different topic and a different thread?
You incorrigible highjacker, you.
Imagine what kind of reaction you'd get if you acting like this during a
real conversation. Imagine you're sitting at a table trying to have a beer
and a chat. Imagine that every time you brought up a subject or made a
comment, the guy across the table responded by the topic switching topic.
You bring up the weather and he recites a poem about climate change. You
mention the local sports teams and he tells you about a war novel. You talk
about Christmas shopping and he tells you about the screeenplay he's working
on in which one of the minor characters has a scene in a department store.
And after a while you noticed that he was always doing this to turn the
conversation to literature. After a while you realize this guy doesn't give
a damn what anyone else is talking about, he's just pretending to respond so
he can convince you how much knows about literature. He wants you to think
he's smart and lit is what he knows about so, dammit all to hell, you're
gonna hear all about 19th century French novellas before the night is over
whether you like it or not. Huh? Haven't we all known people like that?
Aren't we all like that to some extent? Huh? And its not good, am I right?
Wouldn't you say this is self-indulgent and obnoxious behaviour at best?
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 : Sun Dec 04 2005 - 13:59:45 GMT