From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Apr 09 2004 - 17:21:35 BST
> Platt said:
> I see what you mean, I think Pirsig's 'war' between the social and
> intellectual levels is less between conservatives and liberals than
> between the state (the collective or group) and the individual.
>
> dmb says:
> There is certainly a historical relationship between the rise of modernity
> and individuality, but I think you're fundamentally confused about how this
> relates to the conflict between the two top levels in Pirsig's MOQ. Social
> values are exhibited in both individuals and in the larger collective
> society. Intellectual values are exhibited by individuals and social groups
> too. That kind of distinction has little to do with what distinquishes the
> rival forces. In fact, in describing the clash between these value systems,
> Pirsig uses the New Deal, a collective government program, as a prime
> example of the emergence of a new intellecual culture in America. He even
> speaks here of "castes" and "classes" of intellectuals. From chapter 22...
>
> "In the U.S. the economic and social upheavel was not so great as in
> Europe, but Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, nevertheless, became the
> center of a lesser storm between social and intellectual forces. The New
> Deal was many things, but at the center of it all was the belief that
> intellectual planning by the government was necessary for society to regain
> its health. The New Deal was described as a program for farmers, laborers
> and poor people everywhere, but it was also a new deal for the
> intellectuals of America. Suddenly, for the first time, they were at the
> center of the planning process - these were people from a class that in the
> past could normally be hired for little more than laborers' wages. Now
> intellectuals were in a position to give order to America's finest and
> oldest and wealthiest social groups. 'That man', as the old aristocrats
> sometimes called Roosevelt, was turning the whole USA over to foriegn
> radicals, 'eggheads', 'Commies' and the like. He was a 'traitor to his
> class'. Suddenly, before the old Victorians' eyes, a whole new social
> caste, a caste of intellectual Brahmins, was being created ABOVE their own
> military and economic castes."
An intellectual class or caste, or any class or caste for that matter, is
a social pattern. A class or caste cannot read 'Lila.' Also, intellectual
values abhor classes and castes. Intellect values freedom from all such
social divisions, no matter who occupies the divisions. At the
intellectual level, each individual is king.
> Platt said:
> The state wants its citizens to behave in certain, predictable ways by
> following its rituals, laws and mores. For the state to survive (or any
> group for that matter) it must lay down rules and practices governing
> relations among individuals in the group. Thus, the social level's highest
> morality is static conformity.
>
> dmb says:
> Here you equate the state with the social level, but as the "New Deal"
> quote shows this ain't necessarily so. It depends on what state one is
> talking about and when one is talking about it. But I agree that conformity
> is a social value.
In the MOQ, the state, whether called the New Deal, the New Frontier, the
Great Society or whatever, is a social pattern. They all insisted on
conformity--pay your taxes or else.
> Platt said:
> The individual by contrast, while recognizing the necessary role of the
> state, wants to be recognized as unique human being and not just another
> cog in a machine. She wants to be the means to her own ends, not the ends
> of others. Most of of all, she wants to be free to act and speak according
> to dictates of her own intellect,..
>
> dmb says:
> Yes. Right. I'm with you so far...
>
> Platt continued:
> ...not the dictates of politically correct thought imposed by the state.
> That's why she gets upset when individual opinions are stifled such as when
> someone stands up to defend fundamental Christianity, or the superiority of
> Western culture, or the existence of racial differences in intelligence, or
> that America is a force for good in a corrupt world and gets (at best)
> shouted down or (at worst) punished. The highest morality for the
> individual is dynamic freedom from state (group) conformity, or as Pirsig
> might put it, freedom to be degenerate..
>
> dmb says:
> Ooooh. You spoiled a perfectly good thing. Thought imposed by the state?
> Like what? Unless you can refer me to something in the real world, I'm
> going to take that comment as a paranoid fantasy.
I guess you've never heard of laws against so-called hate speech much less
campus speech codes.
> And the rest of it is
> even more disturbing. Look at the list of issues that Platt has attempted
> to frame as a free speech crisis. He is, in effect, defending
> fundamentalism, jingoism, racism and nationalism. This is a recipie for
> fascism if ever I saw one.
Thanks for making my point. I'm surprised you also didn't invoke such
epithets as sexism, racism and homophobia--all intended to silence free
speech.
> Platt said:
> Our constitutional Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech,
> religion, trial by jury, etc., cited by Pirsig as intellectual values, are
> specifically designed to protect the individual from the coercive power of
> the state.
> dmb says:
> They are designed to protect the individual. Period.
Protect from what?
> It makes no logical
> sense to set up the state as the boogey man if "governments are instituted
> among men in order to secure these rights", as Jefferson wrote.
The rights referred to come from God, not the state.
> Its so
> ironic. Conservatives think freedom is served by weakening and starving the
> public institutions that are charged with protecting that freedom.
Conservatives believe in limited government.
> But at least we both want freedom. That's a start. Now if conservatives
> could grasp what rights and freedom really mean....
By freedom, conservatives mean freedom from government interference in
their lives. What liberals mean by freedom is a question mark.
Liberals think some have rights to what others have earned while
conservatives believe individuals have a right to keep what they earn.
Conservatives support the intellectual level by emphasizing individual
rights. Liberals support the social level by emphasizing 'a vague soup of
sentiments' called human rights that are never spelled out but we're
supposed to cheer for them.
Personally, I prefer supporting the intellectual level.
Platt
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 -
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 Apr 09 2004 - 17:21:25 BST