From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 07 2004 - 20:33:58 GMT
Morey, Sam, Matt and all MOQers:
dmb says:
DM's comments (below) were taken from the "When is a metaphysics not a
metaphysics?" thread. As you'll see, the topic has changed to politics since
the thread began...
DM wrote:
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.
dmb says:
Liberalism is tied to SOM? Well, yea, but not any more than any other widely
held modern political ideology. In fact, its hard to imagine how any modern
intellectual discipline could have escaped the effects of scientific
materialism. BUT - and this is a really big but, even bigger than JLo's
butt, I don't think that shifting from a SOM to the MOQ requires the
ejection of Liberalism. In fact, I think Pirsig's framework only clarifies
its status and sharpens its meaning.
"What passed for morality within this crowd (of liberal intellectuals like
himself) was a kind of vague, amorphous soup of sentiments known as 'human
rights'. You were also supposed to be 'reasonable'. What these terms really
meant was never spelled out in any way that Phadedrus had ever heard. You
were just supposed to cheer for them. He knew now that the reason nobody
ever spelled them out was nobody ever could. In a subject-object
understanding of the world these terms have no meaning. There is no such
thing as 'human rights'. There is no such thing as moral reasonableness.
There are subjects and objects and nothing else. This soup of sentiments
about logically non-existent entities can be straightened out by the MOQ. It
says that what is meant by 'human rights' is usually the moral code of
intellect-vs-society; the moral right of intellect to be free of social
control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury;
habeus corpus; government by consent - these 'human rights' are all
intellect-vs-society issues. According to the MOQ these 'human rights' have
not just a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are
essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a lower level of
life. They are for real. ...Unless you separate these two levels of moral
codes you get a paralyzing confusion as to whether society is moral or
immoral. That paralyzing confusion is what dominates all thoughts about
morality and society today." LILA CH 24
dmb continues:
I think this is where we see Pirsig tossing out the bathwater WITHOUT losing
the baby. He gets us out of the soup WITHOUT losing Liberalism. We can build
upon that. If that's what you mean by "going beyond liberalism", then I can
agree. But I think its pretty clear that Pirsig's MOQ only improves
Liberalism. I think this clarification is exactly what "the pragmatists"
need in order to avoid begging the question over social level ideologues
such as fascists and fundamentalists. I think this is the larger framework
we need to avoid the contradiction of Liberalism that Sam mentioned and Matt
explained. The MOQ allows us to assert that allowing each one the freedom to
subscribe to any conception of the good life is much more than just another
conception of the good life. The confusing paralysis that Pirsig refers to
effects "the pragmatist" because he "can't separate these two levels of
moral codes" and has no reasonable basis to priveledge liberal conceptions
of the good life over any other. In "the pragmatists" view the conflict
between fundamentalists and secular liberalism is only a matter of rival
vocabularies, but Pirsig sees it as a manifestation of a much larger
evolutionary conflict. As such, the freedom to pursue one's own conception
of the good life is not only better than the opposite, it is a necessary
part of the ongoing evolutionary process.
"But what the larger intellectual structure of the MOQ makes clear is that
this political battle of science to free itself from donimation by social
moral codes was in fact a MORAL battle! It was the battle of a higher,
intellectual level of evolution to keep itself from being devoured by a
lower, social level of evolution." LILA CH 24
DM wrote:
...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?
dmb says:
Yea, man. Groovy. How about if we call it "the PARTY party". We'll hold our
nominating convention in Las Vegas and Paris Hilton will be the first lady
no matter who wins the nomination. Robert Downey Jr will be our drug czar
and Tommy Chong will head the agriculture department. Our party's slogan
will be "Imagine whirled peas". And we'll move the nation's capitol from
Washington to Santa Cruz, man.
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 - 20:45:39 GMT