Next message: james marshall: "Re: MD liberals, conservatives & suffering"
Hi Steve
On 21 Aug 2003 at 9:49, Steve Peterson
wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> > On 20 Aug
2003 at 20:22, Steve Peterson wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting
thought. I bet this will merely spur a new way to bicker, but
> >> I'll
try it. I would say that liberals tend to focus on fulfilling material
> >> (inorganic
and biological) needs while conservatives focus on improving
> >> social
quality for the suffering.
> >
>
> I was led to
this thinking because Wilber's internal/external split is close
> to Pirsig's distinction
of saying that the inorganic and biological levels
> are objective
while the social and intellectual level are subjective.
>
> > Just a thought,
but shouldn't the above be the other way around?
>
> I don't think
so. Marxism is a good example of the leftist emphasis on the
> lower levels.
It says that what people really need are material goods and
> seeks to give
them to people through wealth redistribution while denying
> personal freedoms
and spiritual needs. People are little more than
> consumers of
goods. Marxism tears town social hierarchies which is seem as
> a good thing
in the light of the MOQ but doesn't replace social hierarchies
> with a social
structure that respects the individual.
Any disagreement here is probably
partly due to a difference in how we see or define liberals
and conservatives.
I would see the conservative as more
driven by the capitalist ethic and material possession and
thus a greater emphasis placed at
the inorganic/biological levels. The liberal, on the other
hand, is more likely to be motivated
by a socialist ethic with the aim of (re-)ordering of social
patterns for better social and intellectual quality for a greater number.
Conservative noteables would be Reagan,
Thatcher, Bush (Snr.) who were not noted for their
desire to improve the lot of the lower
orders as their policies generally benefitted the wealthier
and more powerful.
Liberals such as Chomsky, Pilger,
Albert etc. appear to prefer a more eglatarian society which
entails a re-distribution of wealth
- downwards - theoretically benefitting the least well off.
Of course the above is a very simplistic
view and not one I would get into an argument about.
The point you make about Marx is that
in order to alleviate suffering at a social level the
biological and inorganic levels (material
goods) must be more freely available to a greater
number. Marxism doesn't necessarily
rule out personal freedom or spiritual needs - although
practice of Marxism may do just that.
J. S. Mill, who was around at the same time as Marx,
was a noted liberal (and of socialist
persuasion) and also strongly libertarian and concerned
with improving social quality. Many conservatives also profess to be libertarian.
The point I'm making is that both
liberals and conservatives emphasise different areas of the
static levels but both partake of
(are created by) all levels. The different emphasis at each level
is what determines the way in which suffering is/is not alleviated and not the reduction to
EITHER Inorganic/Biological (Object) OR Social/Intellectual (Subject). Actually I'm firmly with
Squonk here in seeing the Subject/Object split as pointless and detrimental to understanding
the MoQ.
Alleviating suffering is about harmonizing
static patterns and receptivity to DQ.
Horse
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 Aug 23 2003 - 09:04:58 BST