Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 20:27:42 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD What makes an idea dangerous?"

    Hi Bo,

    Nice to hear from you.
     
    > > What holds nations together are social values,
     
    > Yes, but let me point to the part in LILA about the criminal elements -
    > backed by the "intellectuals" - destroying the neighborhood. This Pirsig
    > saw as intellect joining forces with biology to fight their common enemy
    > society, but he did mean that social values were "changed", they weren't
    > allowed to work because they were suppressed by the intellect-dominated
    > environment.

    I see your point.

    > > and obviously the
    > > ideals that are at the root of social values can and do change.
     
    > A bit odd this. During the alleged age that social value was top notch,
    > there were no "ideals" (those are intellect to you?) yet societies grew
    > in complexity from primitive tribes to great empires.

    Here's where we part company. I believe intellectual patterns (ideals
    and such) have been around since the emergence of thinking animals--
    namely humans--some 35,000 year ago. (There's even evidence that
    Neanderthals were thinking creatures.) Intellectual level values grew
    to dominate social level values around the time of Woodrow Wilson. At
    that time the intellectual level was born, but intellectual values
    influenced society long before that, namely, in laws guaranteeing
    certain individual rights--the Magna Carta for example.

    Now we're engaged in a huge battle with Islamo-fascism to determine
    whether social or intellectual values will dominant our lives.

    > The upper level's purpose is to control the lower level, but the lesson
    > of the LILA example is that if intellect abolish societal control (of
    > biology) it jeopardizes itself. The quote above about "the idea of
    > freedom from a social hierarchy" being America's legacy to the world is
    > a slightly different matter.
    >
    > People fleeing social oppressions in Europe were determined to form a
    > "free" equalitarian society in America, but its freedom had to be
    > protected by law & order and military forces ...these are the social
    > patterns that must underpin even the most intellect-dominated society.

    Agree. But the "idea" of a free equalitarian society is an intellectual
    value don't you agree?
     
    > > For
    > > nearly a century, the Marxist ideal held Russia together, backed by
    > > the government-sanctioned slaughter of of millions. Today, the social
    > > values that hold Russia together are capitalism, a fledgling free
    > > market and rights to private property.
    >
    > Marxism was an intellectual scheme from the start, but as the
    > founding fathers disappeared the social trait - always strong in
    > Russians - took over. Yet, your calling "capitalism, free market and
    > private property" social values I balk at. To me social values are
    > something very old. The fame and/or celebrity following wealth surely,
    > but not these relatively recent economical ideas.
    >
    > > Currently many of the social values that hold Iraq together are
    > > undergoing radical change, over the objection of the social values of
    > > Islamo-fascism.
    >
    > Exactly!
    >
    > > From ancient Greece to the American experiment, history might said to
    > > be a study of changes in social values. Societies evolve towards
    > > greater awareness and freedom under the same drive for Quality that
    > > influenced inorganic and biological forms.
    >
    > If societies (meaning social value) can evolve beyond its
    > "jurisdiction" I doubt ...when it did intellect was the result!

    We agree that human laws are social level values, but where we seem to
    disagree is that I say the purpose and content of laws can change under
    the influence of ideas (free speech, etc) whereas you say the
    fundamental purpose of human laws--to keep biological values at bay--
    never changes. Maybe we're both right--just looking at the issue from
    different angles, showing by example how truths can be like "paintings
    in a gallery."

    Well, as Matt says, truth is provisional, except that statement which
    purports to be true doesn't seem to be provisional in any way. I lke
    the way you put it in another post when you noted, "That is as much of
    an oxymoron as the 'many truths.'"

    In any case, doing philosophy, looking at paintings, claiming truths,
    and picking up bar ladies is fun, although it's been awhile since I
    engaged in the latter activity. :-)

    Best,
    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 Nov 01 2003 - 20:26:37 GMT