From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 15:35:06 BST
Dear Wim,
I don't see much future in trying to come to agreement about the political
compass. It's labelling is unclear to say the least, and at worse,
contradictory. Better I think to relate what we discuss to the MOQ.
> In the Dutch situation (with widespread consensus about the
> desirability of a tax level that doesn't differ much from the present -by
> American standards- high level) there is not much coercion needed to
> maintain it.
I don't know about the Dutch, but I'm sure Americans, released from having
taxes automatically taken out of their pay and freed from the threat of
fines, jail and confiscation of their property, would gladly keep tax
money for themselves and their families. I keep remembering Pirsig's
observation to the effect that, "Cooperation without coercion is a
devastating fiction."
> You wrote 15 Apr 2004 11:16:14 -0400:
> 'it seems the "literal" meaning [of "liberal" and "conservative"] is quite
> different there in Europe than here in the U.S.'
>
> I'm afraid that I didn't recognize your descriptions of "liberal" and
> "conservative" as "literal meanings". Would you agree that a literal
> meaning of these terms should be phrased (or rephrasable) using the verbs
> "to liberate" respectively to "conserve"? If yes, could you give a
> description of American "liberals" and "conservatives" using these verbs?
> If no, what would be the criteria for a "literal meaning" of these terms
> for you (also applicable outside a political context)?
I cannot imagine using these terms outside a political context. That
context defines the 'literal meaning' of those terms for me. In a
historical context, I believe those terms had opposite meanings from their
current American political context.
> You wrote 4 Apr 2004 17:06:38 -0400:
> '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.'
>
> If I may translate '"war" between the social and intellectual levels' as
> '"war" and sometimes war between supporters of social patterns of value and
> supporters of intellectual patterns of value' (in which verbal "war"
> expresses more intellectual patterns of value and physical "war" expresses
> more social patterns of value) ... If I must take 'conservatives and
> liberals' as meaning 'American conservatives and liberals' (or 'European
> conservatives and liberals') ... Yes, groups/collectives (with states as
> examples) are kept together by social patterns of value and individuals are
> by definition free from social patterns of value. Being free from social
> patterns of value doesn't necessarily imply support of or participation in
> intellectual patterns of value, however. So I would classify 'collectivism'
> versus 'individualism' understood as practices as a conflict within the
> social level, between more/stronger and less/weaker social patterns of
> value. When understood as theoretical support for more/stronger versus
> less/weaker social patterns of value it is a conflict within the
> intellectual level. So I agree that the "war" between supporters of social
> patterns of value and supporters of intellectual patterns of value is 'less
> between conservatives and liberals than between the collective/group and
> the individual', but I still don't think there is a necessary parallel
> between social/intellectual and collective/individual.
I'm confused. Is their a simpler way to express how you see the 'war'
between levels?
> By the way does your individual also get 'upset when individual opinions
> are stifled such as when someone stands up to [oppose] 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'? (-:
You bet. No opinions should be stifled, pro or con. The Individual Level
wouldn't be an Individual Level if some individuals were allowed freedom
of the speech and others weren't. The Individual Level insists on freedom
of speech for each individual, no matter how 'offensive' to some. But it
doesn't insist that that everyone be given a a platform, or that someone
listen.
Best regards,
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 - 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 Apr 16 2004 - 15:33:28 BST