From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:17:17 GMT
Dear Matt K.,
You wrote 12 Feb 2004 17:56:43 -0600:
'I think I'm in general in large agreement with you about philosophy (and
also, in this case, politics). Our differences, I think, come down to
terminology and practical suggestions.'
I agree. So we'd better go on discussing about practical suggestions on how
to do the 'social stuff' that needs to be done (according to both of us).
It's a pity that you prefer NOT to participate on that kind of discussion on
this list.
I hope I didn't mince your words too much. If I did, it was just to get more
clarity.
You wrote also:
'"Vocabulary" could be defined [as "whole set of metaphors used by
someone"], but I'm not sure what your question is.'
My question was:
'If you're not content any more with "vocabulary" defined as a "systematic
arrangement or organization of your beliefs", please provide another one',
as vocabulary appears to be a core concept in your terminology.
The dialectical hold I'm trying to get on you is of course, as always, to
get an admission from you that a Metaphysics of Quality (or a Philosophy of
Quality or a Vocabulary of Quality if you prefer those terms) DOES have
relevance for politics, for doing needed 'social stuff' and for realising
the ideals the two of us share. The crucial point seems to be this
distinction between 'public' and 'private', which you use to relegate our
discusions here to the 'private' realm and the 'practical suggestions', the
politics and the 'social stuff' to the public part. I don't agree with that
separation. That disagreement is connected with my being a Quaker who does
not agree with a separation between church and state if that implies that my
religious truths/insights/inspirations have no political relevance. (I do
agree with it in the sense that the state should not be run exclusively by
Quakers, of course.) Yes, 'Enlightenment intellectuals created the
public/private split to
increase their privacy, their freedom to do what they want.' But is it still
needed now that we have constitutions, democracy and all kinds of checks and
balances guarding that freedom? Yes, religious wars soaked the European soil
with blood, but don't do so any more (well, less so than in the USA, it
seems after 11 Sept. 2001...), without a separation between church and state
that is taken to the extreme of even separating philosophy and state.
Ironically religion seems to be more important in American politics nowadays
than it is in Dutch politics... It appears as if candidates for positions of
political power in the USA hardly have a chance if they don't profess to be
practising believers. Can you, as an American, explain that to me and square
it with 'Americans decided that religion should be a purely private
affair'??
Maybe you DO keep Plato's Republic off the Senate floor, but you don't
appear to be very successful in keeping the Bible off the Senate floor, out
of your courts of justice etc. ...
'We only weigh and compromise the thin strip of land where compromise is
possible.' you wrote.
I'm afraid that this thin strip of public opinionmaking only leads to
compromises of the kind that safeguard and promote American material and
otherwise short-term interests at the expense of the social and ecological
balance in your own society and in global society as a whole.
Discussing philosophy and religion rationally in public may be essential to
allow intellectual patterns of value to lead and limit social patterns of
value, which otherwise only re-create the law of the jungle on the social
level. It's because Quakers (among others) felt the (religious) need to
speak truth to power, to tell slave-holders and politicians serving their
interests that slavery is morally wrong from their religious point of view,
that slavery was ultimately abolished in the USA... If they had really been
told that such views were beside the (political, public) point, the world
would look quite different now and certainly not better!
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 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:30:21 GMT