From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 23:56:00 GMT
Matt, Sam and all:
dmb reminds:
I had asked Sam what he meant by "the internal contradictions that liberal
discourse generates".
Matt replied:
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? 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?
dmb says:
Oh. I see. Rawls defines a liberal society as one "in which each citizen has
the freedom to have their own conception of the good". And the contradiction
is generated by critics pointing out that this liberal principle is just one
conception of the good. So a liberal society can really only allow certain
conceptions of the good, the ones that value liberal freedom. Is that the
idea? Is that the contradiction to which Sam refered? That's no problem.
Postmodern enlightened philosophers like me can simply invent brilliant new
theories about justice, goodness and truth. (When I include myself among
them, its not that I think I'm one of them, just that I agree with them, as
do all post-enlightenment enlightened philosophers like myself.) More...
Matt said:
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.
dmb says:
But I already pointed out what should be obvious; "the religious right
thinks liberal secular atheism is the work of the devil and would never
agree to meet you on "secularized ground". That's the enemy. As they see it,
agreeing to meet there means they've lost the whole argument before its even
begun. They've given up everything before they've even taken their seats at
the negotiating table. I honestly don't see how your suggestion is of any
practical use whatsoever. It seems to be one huge exercise in begging the
question. It boils down to little more than suggesting everybody who wants
to talk to you simply adopt your mindset, beliefs and terms. ...It seems
unlikely that he, or anyone else, would like to discard their mindset or
comply with such a strategy."
Matt said:
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. ..The only sense in which religious discourse is illegitimate in
a democracy is the sense in which religious discourse poses as political
discourse.
dmb says:
I think this is some kind of bait and switch. I mean, this is not a
political of philosophical idea. You've reduced the issue to one of staying
on the right topic. The seperation of church and state has been reduced to a
matter being honest and not changing the subject at issue. I think this is
light years away from being a real solution, but more than that, Matt,
you've thoroughly ignored Pirsig. Have you nothing to say about the many
Pirsigisms I dished up last weekend? Pirsig is plenty big on politics and
there is no shortage of comments on the topic in Lila. As I keep trying to
explain, the lack of a social/intellectual distinction is keeping the
pragmatist well within the "paralyzing confusion" described in chapter 24. I
mean, if the difference between fundamentalism and liberal secularism isn't
illuminated by the social/intellectual split, then nothing is. Its THEE
classic case. I honestly don't understand your reluctance to discuss, or
even acknowledge, Pirsig's thoughts on the topic.
Matt said:
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.
dmb says:
I don't need pills for that. Craziness comes naturally to me. But
seriously...
This critic can only speak for himself. I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm
practically famous around here for that. What I'm "suggesting" is only
negative. Surely you can understand that. In addition to my objections and
criticisms of what you've written, I'm also complaining about what you
haven't written. Its ironic that one of your solutions to conversational
roadblocks calls for staying on topic and meeting on common ground. I mean,
it seems that Pirsig barely figures into the posts you send here to moq.org.
I would like to challenge both Sam and Matt to answer a question: How do
Pirsig's assertions solve the "liberal contradiction"? I think there is a
good answer in Lila and I think both of you guys are entirely capable of
seeing it. I know you CAN. I only wonder why you WON'T. Its weird.
Thanks,
dmb
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 Mar 07 2004 - 01:00:51 GMT