From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 28 2004 - 14:55:39 BST
DMB
thanks for your thoughts, we certainly
need a more adult political culture, also culture generally,
perhaps us all getting older may help.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 2:14 AM
Subject: RE: MD secular humanism and dynamic quality
> Sam, Matt, DM, Leland and all MOQers:
>
> dmb says:
> Let me begin by saying how interesting this thread has been. There are
> dozens of points that are compelling enough to require a response, but,
for
> the sake of brevity, I've decided not to do the point by point thing this
> time. Instead I'd like to take a step back and do a big picture in broad
> strokes kind of thing. By way of introduction, as a way to get you in the
> mood, here is a snippet of one exachange between Matt and David M...
>
> Matt said to DM:
> You are right to wonder, (if views like being kind to each other or
avoiding
> cruelty may in fact prove to be shallow and uninspiring.) but Rorty and I
> hope not because those thin kinds of views are the only types of things we
> can see a culturally diverse population agreeing on. One's reasons for
being
> kind may differ, but we take the view that cruelty is the worst thing you
> can do as the least common denominator of the type of people we want
running
> around.
> ...So, when we are talking politics, we need a vocabulary we can agree
on,
> and in the face of diversity it's going to end up being thin. The only
> strategy we've come up with so far to help us stick to a vocabulary we can
> agree on is secularization.
>
> David M replied:
> ...problem is, as Rorty accepts, things are not looking very good for
> liberalism. Problem is real solutions are not on the agenda, the call is
to
> arms, and we've got millions of them! We continue with a lesser of many
> evils approach, is there a path to something that is actually good? Can we
> just walk away from the edge of the abyss? ...the result of us letting the
> oil go? Can the US do without the world's resources? ...all those
> anti-democracy regimes we propped up from the cold war ...Iraq? Can
> something good be achieved? I
> think we may be in more trouble than hanging or to liberalism can handle,
> because we are probably are going to be able to hang on to it.
>
> dmb says:
> I'd go even further - or is it just bigger and broader? - and say that
some
> of our problems are NOT ONLY too much for liberalism to handle, some of
our
> most serious problems are intimately tied in with those problems. The
more
> vulgar aspects of materialism and the benefits of liberal democracy are
both
> part of the same package. Modernity has its good and bad sides and it
seems
> that Matt and David aren't really making mutually exclusive cases. They
can
> both be right...
>
> Ken Wilber in his INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY:
> "Modernity, it is said, marked the death of God, the commodification of
> life, the leveling of qualitative distinctions, the brutalities of
> capitalism, the replacement of quality by quantity, the loss of value and
> meaning, the fragmentation of the lifeworld, existential dread, polluting
> industrialization, a rampant and vulgar materialism - all of which have
> often been summarized in the phrase made famous by Max Weber: 'the
> disenchantment of the world'. ...But clearly there were some immensely
> positive aspects of modernity as well, for it also gave us the liberal
> democracies; ideals of equality, freedom and justice, regardless of race,
> class, creed, or gender; modern medicine, physics, biology and chemistry;
> the end of slavery; the rise of feminism; and the universal rights of
human
> kind. Those, surely, are a little more noble than the mere 'disenchantment
> of the world'."
>
> dmb says:
> If I understand the problem, its all about 'the disenchantement'. Along
with
> a scientific world view we also get the death of God, the loss of value
and
> meaning, existential dread, or in Pirsig's terms, "a terrible secret
> lonliness", "a culture of millions of isolated people living and dying in
> little cells of psychic solitary confinement" The process of trying to
free
> politics from religion and science from both has produced wonderful
liberal
> principles like the seperation of church and state, freedom of speech and
> all the rest, but it has also gone too far in that process of
> differentiation so that the domains are divorced, alienated and
> disassociated to the point of hostility. I mean, its good for both science
> and religion to have independence, but why should they be hostile to each
> other and at odds? This is only the most conspicuous example of the
problem
> of Modernity. And its no accident that liberal democracy, as a child of
> Modernity, hasn't done a very good job of dealing with this. I wouldn't
> suggest we tear down the wall of seperation, but it strikes me as a
glossing
> over, a sweeping under the rug. I have no good answers, nothing better
than
> this ancient bandage, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we need
> something better. I mean, when fundamentalism is in a pitched battle with
> vulgar materialism its hard to get behind either side. We all lose no
matter
> who wins that one.
>
> Ken Wilber, again from INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY:
> "..the major philosophers of the Enlightenment were committed to what we
> would recognize as an empirical-scientific outlook, in any of its many
> forms; sensationalism, empiricism, naturalism, realism, materialism. And
> there was good reason for this empirical slant. ... But the inherent
> downsides of this approach are perhaps obvious: All subjective truths
> (introspection, consciousneess, art, beauty) and all intersubjective
truths
> (morals, justice, substantive values) were collapsed into exterior,
> empirical, sensorimotor occasions. Collapsed, that is, into dirt.
Literally.
> The great nightmare of scientific materialism was upon us (Whitehead), the
> nightmare of one-dimensional man (Marcuse), the disqualified universe
> (Mumford), the colonization of art and morals by science (Habermas), the
> disenchantment of the world (Weber) - a nightmare I have also called
> flatland. ...The spiritual dimension, it was solemnly announced, was
nothing
> but a wish-fulfillment of infantile needs (Freud), an opaque ideology for
> opressing the masses (Marx), or a projection of human potentials
> (Feuerbach). Spirituality is thus a deep confusion that apparently plagued
> humanity for approximately a million years, until just recently, a mere
few
> centures ago, when modernity pledged allegiance to sensory science, and
then
> promptly decided that the entire world contained nothing but matter,
period.
> The bleakness of the modern scientific proclamation is chilling."
>
> dmb concludes:
> In the long term, I'm not sure if a nation that operates upon the "thin"
> views of the "lowest common denominator" with "technocratic language" can
> long endure, achieve any real greatness or act as a moral force in the
> world. Surely we can't go backward in history and we do not want theocracy
> or anything that puts the state behind a sectarian religion view. But
> provided the assertions can stand up to intellectual scrutiny, I don't see
> why political philosophers, political scientists, or even actual
politicians
> should be barred from openly considering spiritual values in their work.
I'm
> convinced that the seperate domains can be reintegrated at a higher level
of
> discourse. I mean, it seems that Pirsig's levels crack the problem open
much
> better than describing it a differing vocabularies. If the level of debate
> is raised to the intellectual level, disscussing the values that are
common
> to all religions or the mystical core of all religions for example, we can
> talk about God on the Senate floor without violating the constitution or
> wasting people's time. I mean, I agree with Sam's point - on steroids. I
not
> only think we need to talk about what is most worth doing, and not just
how
> best to do them, I think we need to talk about some deep issues and make
> some global decisions. Don't you think its time the liberal democracies
grew
> up, especially the United States? And if we had a more rational and mature
> public conversation about spiritual matters, don't you think there would
be
> far fewer fundamentalists - who very much insist on talking about God on
the
> Senate floor - in this country? I do. I really think it would help. The
only
> problem is, no one really knows how to do it yet. I think the language is
> just now being invented.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Mar 28 2004 - 15:14:29 BST