From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri Dec 12 2003 - 20:21:38 GMT
Hi Mark:
Platt:
> In yesterdays Supreme Court decision we see intellect stepping in to
> muzzle free speech. Indeed, in communist and socialist countries, i.e.,
> countries supposedly "intellectually guided," free speech is usually
> curtailed, often completely. (Some socialist European countries have
> laws banning so-called "hate" speech.)
Mark:
> Hello Platt, This is indeed worrying. But i would be careful to blame
> intellect here? I think what we may have is political motivation in the
> guise of intellect? Yes, indeed. The US supreme court is deteriorating,
> and has been doing so for some time. In fact, as i understand the
> current state of play, if Bush can replace one more supreme court judge
> with one of his own cronies, we may see the US supreme court becoming
> religiously fundamental.
Platt:
Well, no more religiously fundamental than some liberals I know. :-)
But, here's the thing. It was the supposedly liberal intellectuals on
the court who made the ruling while the "Neanderthal," nonintellectual
conservatives on the court like Scalia and Thomas dissented in favor of
preserving free speech.
> Mark: As i feel may be the case, the intellectual Quality of the US
> supreme court has been seriously eroded. This is not an irreversible
> situation, but at this moment in time, the US supreme court is not what
> it should be?
Platt:
Then who should be on the US Supreme Court be in your opinion? Care to
nominate a few to replace those there now? Please, not Bill and
Hillary.
Mark 12-12-03: I would not wish to nominate members of the supreme court, and
if pushed to do so, Bill and Hillary would most certainly not be up for
consideration.
I feel it is possible to outline some of the characteristics a good supreme
court judge should have, and among these i would list; A first class education
in the Humanities and/or sciences, art and history. I feel this would also
include a historical overview of how US law has evolved and why its political
structure is the way it is. I also feel some characteristics should be avoided;
Political and/or economic self interest. What do you think Platt?
> Mark: Indians are very good at holding onto the cutting edge of the
> moment. Therefore, the Indian will speak freely and openly in response
> to Quality. The European lies through his/her back teeth in order to
> maintain social nicety.
>
> (Forked tongue.)
> (Digression: Squonk is basically an Indian at heart; he will open his
> gob before thinking about it!) So, maybe we could say that the US
> supreme court has become a bit more European of late, and is declaring
> open free speech a no-no?
Don't Europeans consider themselves more intellectual than Americans?.
Mark 12-12-03: Yes! ;-p But is this so? Probably not.
> Platt:
> Ive long held a suspicion that Pirsigs attribution of democracy, free
> speech, trial by jury and freedom of the press to intellect was
> questionable, especially when he identified communist and socialist
> countries as "intellectually guided" and stated unequivocally that the
> "Metaphysics of Quality supports this dominance of intellect over
> society." (Lila, chp. 22) Seeing how this "dominance" suppresses free
> speech casts doubt on this part of Pirsigs thesis.
>
> Mark: It's a matter of fine balance - the sweet spot? In that coherence
> lies beauty and dynamic? Your country is a great country, but i urge you
> to think about how your leaders are letting the American people down
> atrociously, and it could get allot worse if the US supreme court
> becomes lickspittle to the political rulers. It cannot be allowed to
> happen.
Platt:
Definitely agree with balance needed between freedom and order--the
sweet spot. But perhaps you'll expand on how our leaders are letting us
down when the majority approve of the present administration.
Mark 12-12-03: I thought your concern was centred upon the roll and current
make up of the supreme court Platt? If my understanding of the US constitution
is correct, members of the supreme court are not held democratically
responsible? Is it not the case that supreme court judges serve across changing
administrations?
Regarding the approval of the current administration: Only half of those
eligible to vote actually voted for an administration. Of that half, only half
voted for the winning administration, with a degree of speculation regarding the
validity of that count. On top of that, the current president is a mediator
for the interests of large, self serving economic, not political, organisations
like the oil, arms and building industries. Of those serving under the current
President, virtually all have a background in the mentioned economic fields.
If the church and state should be kept apart, then is it not also appropriate
for the state and economic organisations to be autonomous also? For example,
The man who used to sell arms to Sadham Hussien is now an important figure in
the white house. i.e. Donald Bumfluff. I do not feel to be high Quality
politics.
>Platt:
> When you have a court packed with so-called intellectuals deciding that
> the U.S. Constitution provides for unrestricted sodomy (about which the
> Constitution says nothing) but allows restrictions on political speech
> (which the Constitution expressly forbids), questioning intellects
> legitimacy in controlling society seems not only appropriate, but
> vitally necessary to anyone who cherishes individual liberty. Even the
> radical right Rush Limbaugh and the radical left American Civil
> Liberties Union agree on wrongness of the Courts scholarly attack on
> free speech rights.
>
> Mark: There you have it in a nutshell; the intellectual Quality of the
> US supreme court members may have been diluting over time to the point
> where alarm bells may be heard? I know the situation is concerning the
> British media, because the make-up of the US supreme court has been
> covered on the BBC's 'News night' programme - a high quality, unbiased
> reporting team in my view.
Platt:
The BBC unbiased? Now that's really debatable. (I was going to say
laughable, but in the interests of politeness . . .)
Mark 12-12-03: American friends of mine listen to the BBC world service
because the Fox news organisation is supremely biased. The BBC has been repeatedly
attacked over the last two decades by its own country's government because the
BBC is not accountable to either: 1. The government. 2. A privately owned
corporate editorship.
> Platt:
> An aesthetic approach to the issue finds the rough and tumble of free
> political speech immensely satisfying in the same way that Pirsig loves
> the dynamics of New York City:
>
> "That, Phaedrus thought, is how the MOQ explains the incredible
> contrasts of the best and the worst one sees here. Both exist here in
> such terrific intensity because New Yorks never been committed to any
> preservation of its static patterns. Its always ready to change. Whether
> you are or not. This is what creates its horror and that is what creates
> its power. Its strength is its looseness. Its the freedom to be so awful
> that gives it the freedom to be so good." (Lila, chp.17)
>
> Would that all intellectuals understood that! But Im afraid when it
> comes to society, their instinct is to "control."
> Mark: I understand you find the Intellectual intervention in some
> socialist countries to be questionable Platt. But i would regard Mayor
> Julienne's Zero tolerance stance on NY crime to be an attempt to support
> the social cohesion of NY by suppressing the Biological disrupting
> element? That was an Intelligently implemented pattern of action which
> some would argue made NY less exciting? I can't think who would have NY
> return to it's Starsky and Hutch image? Maybe Starsky and Hutch fans? ;)
It's the proper role of a mayor of a society to fight biological crime.
That's what societies are for. Again, the balance--freedom and order.
It's intellect's passionate love of order in all things that concerns
me. History shows that intellectually controlled societies don't do too
well, and in some cases, are horrible human disasters.
Best regards,
Platt
Mark 12-12-03: So, do you feel it should not be the case that the Supreme
court intervene at all? Or is it that it's intervention is inappropriate? You
see, i always felt that the Supreme court was rather like our House of Lords - it
was a corrective mechanism to prevent short term advantage to those wielding
power? Tricky one.
All the best,
Mark
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 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 20:29:11 GMT