From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 20:49:41 GMT
Mati, Paul and all lovers of human rights:
I've taken thoughts and quotes from several posts. Although I tried to pick
only the most essential elements of your conversation, it still looks like
it might be a long one. So let me thank you for your time in advance, dear
reader.
Mati said:
Through intellect we have capacity to understand the value of democracy.
............This is the current struggle in Iraq, which is a strongly
rooted social system. The success of the US will be based on their
capacity to build the intellectual capacity of the country. My concern
here is the US will pull out before an intellectual capacity will be
developed.
dmb replies:
I wouldn't put it exactly that way, but basically agree. In fact, I think
you've identified THEE problem that the neo-con architects have utterly
failed to grasp. Democracy is not the kind of thing that can be imposed from
without. It requires a natural maturation process. For example, the English
had been slowly developing Democracy for more than 500 years BEFORE the
Declaration of Independence was signed (The Magna Carta was written in 1215)
and that was the tradition that allowed Democracy to take root in the new
world. So a long period of social and cultural evolution is required before
anything like genuine Democracy. By analogy, the neo-cons think they can
turn a 10 year old boy into a 50 year old man over night simply by holding a
gun to his head and demanding that he "grow up right now!" I'd bet a buck or
two that if the Iragi people were allowed to vote today, they'd vote against
Democracy.
Paul said:
I think democracy is described, in MOQ terms, as a part of an intellect vs.
society moral code and is not entirely an intellectual pattern of values
(except as a concept or ideology). In fact, I think that the application of
democracy is most visible as a social pattern (of government) - one that, in
principle, does no harm to intellectual patterns.
dmb replies:
Same deal. I wouldn't exactly put it like that, but basically agree. Any
genuinely democratic nation will have both social and intellecual values in
its' culture. The concept, the principle itself is intellectual, but only
makes sense in relation to the social values that it seeks to tame or
mollify. Its just like the relationship between marriage vows and sexual
appetite, where fidelity is a social value that seeks to tame our biological
impulses. In the same way, democracy and human rights are all about taming
our social impulses. So its ok to say that "democracy is most visible in the
culture" because that's where it must play itself out if it is to have any
real meaning, but I think its very important to emphasize that rights are a
set of intellectual principles and that they are meant to protect the
freedom of intellect itself. I think its very important to maintain the
conceptual distinction even though things are alway mixed up in real life,
where the tires meet the road. I think this is what Pirsig is getting at
here...
"[The Metaphysics of Quality] says that what is meant by "human rights"
is usually the moral code of intellect-vs.-society, the moral right of
intellect to be free of social control. Freedom of speech; freedom of
assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent
- these "human rights" are all intellect-vs.-society issues." [Lila
p.352-353]
dmb continues:
The moral right of intellect to be free of social control. Surely this is
the operative phrase. This moral code is not intended to suggest that rights
are both social and intellectual. Quite the opposite. It points out that the
two are in conflict. The difference has become increasingly clear here in
the United States. These rights are all being weakened for the sake of
safety and security. This is a pattern repeated every time a society feels
threatened. And this is exactly why Pirsig describes the Bill of Rights and
such as "instuctions to the military and police, because they are
traditionally the social level institutions that are most likely to violate
these rights.
"All the laws of history, all the arguments, all the constitutions and
the Bills of Rights and Declarations of Independence are nothing more
than instructions to the military and police. If the military and police
can't or don't follow these instructions properly they might as well
have never been written." [Lila p.355-356]
Paul said:
...the people of Iraq certainly participate in intellectual patterns, to
deny this classifies them as prehistoric. What we had in Iraq (amongst other
violations) was a repression of intellectual patterns not conforming to
those "socially approved" by the enormously powerful static social patterns
of dictatorship.
dmb replies:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as an
intellectual Iraqi and I'm sure there are some who yearn for rights and
freedoms, but in terms of the center of gravity, the vast majority are
pre-modern. It seems pretty clear that the fundamentalist (ours and theirs)
are anti-modern, anti-intellectual and are trying quite desperately to
re-assert traditional social level values over modernity. Its not really a
chronological thing. Mrk Twain was a modern guy who lived at the height of
Victorian America. Douglas MacAurthor was a Victorian guy who lived in a
modern world. And so it is with cultures, nations, movements, ideologies and
so many other things.
Mati said:
I have been reading over the last several months the Gulag Archipelago, by
Alexander S., he illustrates, again and again, how the social culture of
Russia under Stalin repressed any and all who were able to intellectualize
the times. They were seen as a threat of the social order that Stalin wanted
to create. I believe that was the case when the Russians executed my
grandfather during WWII. I finally understood that as intellectual he was
seen as a subversive and he had to go.
dmb replies:
Exactly. The Russians tried to have a revolution, but ended up only changing
the names of things so that Stalin was really just the most powerful Czar in
their history. It only serves to illustrate that a thousand years of
tradition can't be erased over night. They weren't grown up enough to adopt
anything like genuine democracy or human rights. In spite of all the lip
service and grand wishes, Stalin was just as anti-intellectual and
anti-modern as was Hilter. They were two peas in a pod. Just ask George
Sorros. He and his family, as Hungarians, suffered under both "communism"
and fascism and he sees no big difference them. This is why his comparison
of Hitler and Bush is so compelling. He knows what these things look like in
real life. This is also why the comparison of Stalin and Saddam is so apt.
Believe it or not, the Baathists believed they were going to modernize their
nations by importing ideas from the West, but only ended up reverting back
to social level authoritarian rule. This is why so many have confused
communism (Platt) with authoritarianism. The problem with the communist
revolutions in Russia and China, for example, is not that they were too
communist, but that they were too Russian and too Chinese. They are/were
both communist Republics in name only.
Mati said:
Weather it was Sadam or Stalin the same process occurred. But I
believe that there was also the primitive nature of the culture,
specifically Islam in the case of Iraq that allows those dictatorships
to find a latch of power. Intellectually there wasn't a basis fight off
those dictators. Hitler just capitalized on the strong social levels
and provided some irrational intellectual conjecture (Darwinism and
Germans and its society being the "Fittest") to gain power and then
destroyed any intellectual, as well as, social opposition
dmb says:
I think that is exactly right.
"Society exists primarily to free people from the biological chains.
.....One reason why fundamentalist Moslem culture has become so fanatic in
their hatred of the West is that it has released the biological forces of
evil that Islam has fought for centuries to control." Pirsig 353
dmb says:
We see this idea demonstrated very clearly in the fundamentalists attitude
toward women. In the way-over-the-top effort to control sexuality, women in
the Islamic world have almost nothing like rights or freedom. We also see
that physical punishment is used in way we in the West find quite
horrifying, such as the chopping off of hands and cutting out of tounges. It
all seems directly aimed at controlling the body. Again, I'm sure there are
those who yearn for intellectual freedom and am especially impressed with
the college students in Iran, but on the whole its pretty clear that much of
the Islamic world is pre-modern and is therefore very far from being ready
for democracy.
Paul said:
Both democracy and fascism have social and intellectual components. I think
democracy is better than fascism because, in the intellect vs. society
struggle, it favours intellect; fascism favours society.
dmb says:
Again, real life is never as clear cut as our concept about it but I think
its important to maintain the distinction nevertheless. As both a MOQer and
a student of the history of fascism it seems that we can define fascism as
the assertion of social level values as a reaction to and rejection of
intellectual values. Sure, there is certainly such a thing as a NAZI
scientist, but the question is, "what values are being served by science in
such circumstances". What's the driving force? (Its tragically funny that
the cold war became a battle between our NAZI scientists and their NAZI
scientists.) One of the Pirsigims that springs to mind here reminds us that
its entirely possible to assert social level values in intellectual terms.
But this is just a matter of putting a tuxedo on a chimp. Osama can use a
satellite phone and fire a heat-seeking missle, but these are only modern
tool in the hands of a pre-modern man. You know what I mean?
Pirsig in chapter 22:
"The gigantic power of socialism and fascism, which have overwhelmed this
(20th) century, is explained by a conflict of levels of evolution. This
conflict explains the driving force behind Hitler not as an insane search
for power but as an all-consuming glorification of social authority and
hatred of intellectualism. His anti-Semitism was fueled by
anti-intellectualism. His hatred of communists was fueled by
anti-intellectualism. His exaltation of the German Volk was fueled by it.
His fanatic persecution of any kind of intellectual freedom was driven by
it."
Paul said:
Intellect does not replace society any more than society replaces biology.
The levels aren't "eras," to be permanently left behind. ...each level
offers freedom from the static forces below and must not be completely
undermined. Morality is not about picking one level over all others, it is a
complex struggle, a balancing act.
dmb replies:
Again, I think this is nearly perfect, but I'd tweak it a bit. I think that
calling it a balancing act is a bit misleading. The moral codes basically
tell us that in cases where the levels are in conflict, we ought to choose
the higher one. (Another very importanat reason to maintain the distinction
between the social and intellectual levels.) This is why we have the code of
art, the fifth moral code, which says that when everything else is equal (on
the same level and such) we are to choose the more Dynamic one. In all cases
the trick is to see which is the most evolved and go with that. This is why
he insists that we make a distinction between those things that social
values are meant to control (biology) and those things that should not be
controlled by social values (intellect). So we could put it in terms of
"balance", but it strikes me as something less than the perfect word. If
there is a social level value, for example, that encroaches on intellectual
freedom we ought not try to balance it with anything. We ought to reject it
because its immoral to allow social level values to inhibit the freedom of
intellect. The next two Pirsig quotes paint a pretty clear picture of this
idea....
"Intellect can support static patterns of society without fear of
domination by carefully distinguishing those moral issues that are
social-biological from those that are intellectual-social and making
sure there is no encroachment either way." [Lila p.345]
"We must understand that when a society undermines intellectual freedom for
its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it represses
biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally good. These
moral bads and goods are not just "customs." They are as real as rocks and
trees. " [Lila p.355-356]
dmb says:
See? Its a hierarchy. The lesser should never be allowed to control the
greater or more evolved level. This is especially crucial when it comes to
the conflict between the social and intellectual values not only because the
intellectual level is so much younger and more fragile, but because SOM
utterly fails to make a distinction between the two. The metaphysics of
substance tells us that all thoughts are products of the brain, are an
outgrowth of our biological selves and is thereby unable to see the levels
as distinct. I think Rorty is guilty of this and sees no way to sort it out.
This is also why so many participants here have trouble with the idea. We
are constantly seeing attempts to push the intellect back tens of thousands
of years, of confusing human intellect with animal instinct so that Mozart's
music is only an extension of bird songs and mating calls. And more to the
point, this is why the foreign policies of the neo-conservatives are so
tragically dangerous. This is why so many Americans are duped by the lip
service paid to intellectual values like democracy and freedom by the
crypto-fascists that are presently in charge of things. As I understand it,
this administration is way too much like the NAZIs. Carl Rove and Hermann
Goering are two peas in a pod. At the Nuremburg trials, the latter said...
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to
come back to his farm in one piece? ..That is understood. But after all it
is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a
simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice
or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leader,
That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger."
dmb says:
I think attitude exactly mirrors what is happening right now before our
eyes. The current administration sold the war in Iraq on the premise that
there was an imminent threat, that Iraq was poised to kill millions of
Americans and those who dared to question or criticize were painted as not
only unpatriotic, but as people who "hate" America, as giving aid and
comfort to the enemy. This paint job was not just preformed by raving
lunatics like Ann Coulter, but also by the Vice-President and the Attorney
General of the United States.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. And if you don't vote for the Democrat next fall,
you're obviously unpatriotic and hate America. ;-) Thanks again for your
time, dear reader.
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 Nov 30 2003 - 21:45:05 GMT