From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 02 2004 - 19:17:54 GMT
Matt
Your final point about 'what are we suggesting?' is spot on.
Your analysis of liberalism and what is good about it is
correct. But this is to applaud our present gains.
Indeed, what I ask is the same question, what can we do to
improve this existence? I think we need to promote the
MOQ over the limitations of SOM. I also suggest liberalism
is tied to SOM, so that moving beyond SOM probably means
going beyond liberalism. We have to undermine the present aristocracy,
with its patronage, corruption, inequality, illegitimacy, etc; not uphold
its
power by accepting private ownership and property, appalling standards
of education, the moral vacuum at the heart of corporate life, etc.
We currently lack ambition, I would like to dream again in a manner
of those strange mixed times of secularism and intense religiosity
known as the Renaissance. You talk of private dreams and values,
how much more do we need a public re-evaluation of values?
I think the first slogan of my new 'love and freedom party'
is 'less work more quality for life'. Our values: freedom, life, love,
giving, joy.
Perhaps also- 'CoOperation not competition'. Feels like 1968 again doesn't
it?
Anyone want to join? Hopefully someone with a lot of money for campaign
funds.
Come on Mr PH you're the posh one, put the first $1m in.....
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?
> Sam, David,
>
> Matt said:
> Two, I never said there was a problem with religion. There is only a
problem with conversations that occur where there is minimal hope of
agreement on anything of substance (hopes, purposes, language, etc.) which
is what happens when a theist and an atheist talk about God. Which is why,
when it happens on the Capital floor, I ask them to take it outside.
>
> Sam said:
> What counts as 'minimal hope'? Would it make a difference if that central
clause were rewritten as 'when a fascist and a liberal talk about race'? In
other words, are you saying that the (minimal) boundaries of democratic
discourse need to be defended with arms? (ie force people to 'take it
outside') If so, you are making religious discourse illegitimate within a
democracy. Which DMB would agree with, I think, despite his other criticisms
;-) I don't agree with it. I think that can be demonstrated by pointing out
the internal contradictions that liberal discourse generates, and the
necessity of an external reference or input. In MoQ terms, the insufficiency
of any SQ system, and the necessity to remain open to DQ. In the secular
language space what are the mechanisms by which DQ insights can be
integrated? (Don't say democracy, because that simply brings in religion by
the back door! Same for free speech.)
>
> Matt:
> The contradiction of liberal discourse that Sam is talking about (at
least, this is the one I'm familiar with) is when critics ask Rawls, after
he says that a liberal society is the kind of society in which each citizen
has the freedom to have their own "conception of the good," if his "justice
as fairness" principle that governs liberal society is not just one of these
conceptions. Its what happens when public schools say that they don't teach
values at school, and religionists respond that the "secular humanism" they
teach is a set of values. These are actually the types of connumdrums that
Pirsigians have no patience with because we already know that no thing is
valueless. So, does liberal democracy fall apart because of an internal,
conceptual inconsistency, or can we neo-Enlightenment thinkers reformulate
our point? (And, just in case people buy into the recent hack-and-slash
campaign renewed against me, if I include myself under the any of the
ever-proliferating, s
> ometimes grandiose appellations I use, it is only because I agree with the
heavy hitters, not because I think I'm on a par with Oakeshott, Berlin,
Rawls, or Rorty.)
>
> I think we can reformulate our point. Part of the answer is analogous to
how Rorty answers the slightly misleading question, "So, is the pragmatist
theory of truth itself true?" Both answers are that we need to look at the
culture that is created by them, is an Enlightenment culture better than
other cultures?
>
> Liberal culture is the culture that applies Mill's utilitarian point about
what people are premitted to do for happiness to what governments are
permitted to do to instill values. Secular humanism is a set of values, but
it is the set of values that says that you can have your own conception of
the good above and beyond secular humanism. It says that you can believe
non-believers are going to hell as long as you get along with them at work.
Any conception of the good, "above and beyond" secular humanism, that can
make that concession, is one that can fit in liberal society.
>
> In other words, I am telling Sam and Wim to "go secularize" themselves.
"Secular" is the word liberals use to denote something we can all talk
about. I'm not asking Christians to stop talking about God altogether, I'm
asking that they not talk about God when talking about health care or
campaign financing. What denotes "minimal hope" cannot be defined because
it is something that is muddled through and decided for each particular
case. The only sense in which the boundaries of democratic discourse need
to be defended with arms is the sense in which we should repel the Nazis and
the Communists from taking over our government with arms. The only sense in
which religious discourse is illegitimate in a democracy is the sense in
which religious discourse poses as political discourse. In secular
language, DQ _is_ left in the space of countenace by democracy. I'm not
sure at all why this is a bad answer, except perhaps because the question is
bad. Dewey secularized DQ by ta
> lking about America's "spirit of experimentalism." Its the fallibilism
where we keep trying things, not to get it _right_, but because we want
things to get better.
>
> Lately I've felt like I'm taking crazy pills in this conversation. What
do people really think I'm saying? More to the point, I'm not sure what all
of my critics are suggesting. I asked for proposals because that's the only
way liberals can really understand a critique. We know that our way of life
begs many of the important questions over the fundamentalists, but that's
not a strike against one side or the other. What's a strike against
fundamentalists is the type of persecution that would occur in a
fundamentalist culture. And we need only look overseas to the Middle East
for examples of what might happen. So, what I want to know is what
everybody is proposing. Saying that you want self-criticism and
understanding instead of a public/private split makes absolutely no sense to
me because I still have no idea why they are mutually exclusive. I need
something more specific.
>
> How is relgious discourse illigetimate? How do you keep it legitimate in
your sense? Are talking about theology debates on the Senate floor? What
are you talking about then? Are you talking about critical thinking about
all things? Then explain to me why what I'm saying is somehow against that.
>
> I never said the public/private split solves all of our problems,
political or otherwise, or helps us even think about all of our problems.
It may help us think about some of our problems, however, like gay marriage.
The question for secular humanists like myself is: how does gay marriage
hurt me or my society? As far as I can tell, homosexuality is private and
so is marriage, so I'm not sure why its really a debate.
>
> Pragmatism only leaves you empty-handed if you start asking it for things
that its not supplying. Like secularism, its more like a purifying agent,
then an orange or an apple to munch on. Once again, that's not a strike
against pragmatism, that means you are confused in what pragmatism is
supposed to do.
>
> Matt
>
> p.s. We appear to have come to some intersubjective agreement, however,
on the issue of poo-tasting.
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 Mar 02 2004 - 19:23:34 GMT