From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 19:01:35 GMT
Hi Sam
Strongly agree with the below. I strongly deplore
how our politics is about how to achieve better services,
stronger economy, greater prosperity as unquestionable values, and refuses
to address real
problems and questions and conflcit about what sort of people/society
we want to be. My values of minimum paid work, simplicity,
sustainability, more science and space research, more political
participation, reducing copyright, more social creativity,
more time for art, creativity, play, better social inclusion,
etc, etc are just never discussed.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: MD secular humanism and dynamic quality
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for the reply. Let me first sketch out where I agree, because I
think that will clarify where
> I disagree. I'm happy with 'liberalism' as what we're talking about,
although (i) I think 'secular
> humanism' is accurate too! and (ii) you and I understand liberalism as
akin to Locke/JS Mill etc
> rather than as a political insult. Within that JS Mill style tradition
freedom of religious belief
> is a high quality static pattern, one of the highest, which needs to be
preserved and defended from
> lower quality static patterns which might undermine it (eg an insistence
on an established state
> religion, variably defined, so Stalinism qualifies). Essentially, as you
say, allowing free speech
> to be a part of the process rules out an insistence on dogma, which would
undermine that static
> pattern and inhibit its dynamic evolution.
>
> Now those things I think you and I can pretty much agree on. Where I think
we still part company is
> your insistence that it is only the practical outcomes of policies that
"have a place on the Senate
> floor". I am happy to say that I DO want to debate God on the Senate
floor - if, that is, 'God' is
> understood in a broad (classical or MoQian) sense, not a narrow (Modern)
sense. I think that your
> effective qualification on free speech does itself undermine that high
quality pattern of
> liberalism. I need to explain why I see a tension here.
>
> The tension exists on two levels and it's the second that I think is more
important and interesting
> for our conversation.
>
> The first, simple level, relates to your comment that "The secular
vocabulary is the one used in
> politics." This is clearly untrue for the United States, although it
probably is true in much of
> Europe. But what IS employed in political debate is the language of
values, of what is the good
> life, of, as you put it, "What type of people should we become?" I think
this sort of language is -
> for historical reasons if nothing else - religious language, although it
doesn't have to be tied to
> any of the established religions. I think that a MoQian language would
qualify - in other words,
> people are debating Quality in political terms.
>
> The second (much more interesting) level, though, is a point about the
'basic tenets' of liberalism.
> You said,
>
> "Well, the problem I have with conceding that "it is at least _prima
facie_ plausible that there
> will come a time when the Dynamic evolution of secular humanism requires a
reconsideration of its
> basic tenets" is a legitimate objection is that I don't see it as an
objection. I simply agree with
> you and fail to see why I shouldn't be able to."
>
> I want to know how it is possible to reconsider the basic tenets of
[liberalism] without engaging in
> fundamental considerations or articulations of the Good or Quality (which
I think count as
> 'religious' on a family resemblance understanding). These would seem to be
disqualified by your
> comment that "The only sense in which religious discourse is illegitimate
in a democracy is the
> sense in which religious discourse poses as political discourse." I just
don't see the division
> between the two vocabularies that you do; in fact I think it is that
division which you are trying
> to enforce as a pragmatic 'add-on' to classical liberalism, and which I
think is unjustified. You
> seem to want to make political discourse purely technocratic, ie 'how can
we best achieve X', when I
> think an essential part of political discourse is 'what X should we
achieve'. So you're making a
> political point under philosophical disguise. I don't think that latter
question (what X should we
> achieve) can be answered except through the use of non-pragmatic language,
both in the simple sense
> of 'where should we go' but also in the profound sense of 'lets leave room
for debating whether
> liberalism is the best system we can have'. In other words, even if we're
debating about health
> care, I don't think we can escape ultimate questions of the good. (Perhaps
we could focus on that?)
>
> I don't think there's a huge difference between our views in practice
(pragmatically!) but I think
> the difference is important. What do you think?
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
> 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 26 2004 - 20:07:45 GMT