From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 20:47:58 GMT
Morey, Norton and all MOQers:
I'm thinking that Sam might be interested in this because it relates to our
discussion of "the liberal contradtiction".
David MOREY re-asked:
Did you have any thoughts on: 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. Or
do you think the key to change is through intellectual/cultural change? My
concern was about the blocks in our current social arrangements to even
addressing the problems of SOM intellect and culture.
dmb says:
I wasn't trying to avoid your questions or change the subject. Its just that
I don't think we can really solve the practical problems on a practical
level. If I understand what Pirsig is saying, the political conflicts of our
time are just one of the most obvious ways in which a much larger battle is
playing itself out. If there is a metaphysical cause behind the conflict,
then that is also where the solution will be found. If I understand what
Wilber, Pirsig and others are saying, the two sides in this conflict
represent different value systems, different world views and speak entirely
different languages. The same basic flaw has been well described by Pirsig
and Wilber. Add Alan Watts to this list too. I am extremely sympathetic to
causes like equal rights and good working conditions, but questions that
center exclusively on economic and political turf wars strike me as part of
that rabbit chase Pirsig bemoans. I think Alan Watts gets at your questions,
or rather explains how we've been trapped into asking them...
In the introduction to his book, "THE SUPREME IDENTITY":
"To work for peace and order on the purely political or economic level may
be effective in certain subordinate instances, but to work exclusively or
even primarily at this level is about as unrealistic a procedure as may be
imagined. A society which cannot agree what man is for, which cannot be
unamimous in some philosophy of man's true destiny, cannot be a united
society. ...If you do not know what an automoblie is for, (or what a
motorcycle is for) it is absurd to think that you can run or repair it
intelligently. To educate man merely to earn his living in harmony with
others is simply giving him the power to live without a goal, and even
without any principle of harmony. It is to set him going just for the sake
of going, with the request that he help others to go also, and not get in
their way. But when no one knows WHERE he is going- except to some place
where he can just keep on going- the result is a confusion and futility
which no amount of well-meaning liberalism can control. Man needs somewhere
to go. We must ask, then, whether there is any hope that modern philosophy,
science and religion may provide an answer."
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 14 2004 - 20:50:52 GMT