From: edeads (edeads@prodigy.net)
Date: Fri Mar 12 2004 - 02:01:48 GMT
good of you to note the "inequality and failure to reduce working hours."
these are major impediments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: MD Beyond Liberalism?
> Hi dude, yeah the PARTY party is good for me too.
>
> Back to reality.... OK interesting points below.
> So how seriously do we need to take the value
> of the intellectual level. How are we going to get more
> people on this level and off of the dominance of the social
> level. I think that mal-functioning aspects of the social level,
> such as inequality and the failure to reduce working hours,
> is making progress currently impossible.
>
> regards
> David M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 8:33 PM
> Subject: MD Beyond Liberalism?
>
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Mar 12 2004 - 02:01:22 GMT