From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Mar 29 2004 - 22:16:38 BST
Dear Platt,
You wrote 22 Mar 2004 11:17:59 -0500:
'DMB and I ... agree that 'war' between the intellectual and social levels
is indeed a fitting metaphor because it's Pirsig's'
If Pirsig is your highest authority on the interpretation of what 'the' MoQ
is, you might take to heart that he doesn't want his opinions to be read as
Papal Bull (e.g. see his letter to Paul quoted 29 Sep 2003 16:52:03 +0100).
He appreciates reading in our discussions 'real philosophy' instead of
'philosophology', our own opinions about the general nature of the world
rather than our discussion of his opinions (see his introduction to 'Lila's
Child').
So please give me YOUR reasons for experiencing 'war' a fitting metaphor for
the relation between the intellectual and social levels.
You continued:
'You're free, of course, to alter the MOQ any way you wish by saying, for
example, the levels are not at war. But it wouldn't be the MOQ.'
If you define 'the MoQ' as 'Pirsig's metaphysics' you may be right,
especially if you use 'Lila' as the crucial test. Am I allowed to call my
ideas 'a version of the MoQ' that admittedly deviates from some of Pirsig's
ideas? Should I go somewhere else to present them and compare their quality
with those of Pirsig and those of other contributors to this list?
You 'disagree with DMB's assertion that the conservative position is
anti-intellectual.' So do I. 'Conservatism' as I understand it is a system
of ideas that prefers existing, proven patterns of value over new, unproven
ones and even wants to defend existing patterns against change (conserve
them), which is too often degeneration. Conservatism and liberalism are both
needed. They represent sq and DQ in politics.
Your definition (27 Mar 2004 08:38:14 -0500) of 'conservative' as 'someone
who thinks government should be restrained from doing good things because
they usually end up badly' is very confusing from a Dutch point of view,
because that is the position of Dutch political parties that call themselves
'liberaal'. They want to 'liberate' society from excessive government
interference. It makes me wonder whether your definition of 'conservative'
isn't too much informed by your 'libertarianism'. I can understand it if you
experience any government as mainly a source of degenerative change, but how
is that possible in a democracy? If conservatives are in power, how can the
government be so bad that it should be restrained from doing good? Should
government also be restrained from defending good existing patterns (like
heterosexual marriage) against degeneration??
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Mon Mar 29 2004 - 22:36:37 BST