Re: MD Capture of a Tyrant

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 - 21:12:11 GMT

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD The MOQ: An expansion of rationality"

    Dear Stephen,

    You asked me 20 Dec 2003 16:23:01 -0500 to help you recognize the political
    correctness that all Americans share. You already agreed with one aspect of
    it 20 Dec 2003 16:58:38 -0500: the idea that 'the USA is the greatest
    nation, because it is being uniquely built on ideas held to be universal and
    self-evident rather than upon "us v. them" mentality'. I could add the idea
    that 'the greatest of these' ideas held to be universal is the idea that men
    are born to be free.

    This political correctness enhances social cohesion among Americans, but
    also limits possible intellectual agreement of Americans with non-Americans.
    From my point of view any 'greatest nation' idea is nonsense, because
    nations are or should be becoming obsolete anyway, because they hamper
    further social development. From the point of view of others, who favour the
    nation they belong to themselves over America (e.g. a lot of French) it's an
    expression of loathsome American arrogance.
    I don't think (as I stated before) that the USA is unique in being built on
    ideas that have to be taken for granted and that have to be paid lipservice
    to in order to be taken seriously in intellectual discussion (another way of
    phrasing 'held to be universal and self-evident'). The ideas that Americans
    value so highly are not unique to them either (incidentally they were
    borrowed
    from the French thinkers that spawned the French revolution). The
    not-so-great thing about Americans is, that they tend to make an unbalanced
    selection from those borrowed ideas (putting 'freedom' on top and relatively
    neglecting 'equality' and 'brotherhood').

    O yes, 'ideally public statements on government policy would be evaluated on
    a ... true/false basis rather than a ... social acceptability, social status
    of speaker, basis'. (And evaluating -taken to imply: 'consciously'- anything
    on any basis is always intellectual in my definitions. Intellectual patterns
    of value based on social acceptability and status considerations are
    evolutionary backward, because they are inconsistent with 'freedom, equality
    and brotherhood' taken as a whole and also -incidentally- with the American
    constitution, I gather.) The point (made in my 'economics of want and
    greed') is, that humans simply don't have the capacity to evaluate
    everything. We wouldn't ever come out of our beds in the morning if we would
    have to evaluate every minute movement we have to make to get to work. We
    have to rely on habits and behavioural patterns copied from others. We have
    to make the existing political system do (and can rationalize that as 'well,
    it the best available option we have' as long as we haven't properly and
    fully evaluated it).
    'Intellectual patterns are based on social patterns' to me primarily means,
    that we cannot 'survive' beyond biological subsistence (i.e. lead a really
    'human' life) with participation in only intellectual patterns of value.
    Intellectual patterns of value cannot all our behaviour all of the time.
    Mind is a flash-light that can only illuminate small bits of the dark at a
    time.

    You wrote 20 Dec 2003 16:58:38 -0500:
    'Anyone who wants his or her ideas to be heard in the US will refrain from
    saying that another country is better and will qualify any criticism with
    the "USA is the greatest nation" disclaimer whether they believe it or not.
    Though both the liberals and conservatives do make the disclaimer, I think
    it is imposed from the conservative side.'

    Criticism is always heard better if it is qualified to reduce the risk of
    breaking the relation in which it is expressed. It's a social level
    phenomenon that relations are strengthened by making common cause AGAINST
    others. The intellectual patterns of value that determine the content of
    criticisms and qualifiers are irrelevant. 'Imposition' of such content from
    any side in an intellectual debate seems meaningless to me.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 : Thu Jan 15 2004 - 22:28:11 GMT