From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 05:59:38 BST
Dear ? (SWZwick) and others,
In reply to another attempt to swing this thread back to the MoQ:
SWZwick wrote 3 Jun 2004 15:40:39 -0400:
'I see Chomsky's absolute, almost Bush-like certainty as part of a
biological need we all have (in the sense of it being a hard-wired
neurological need), and this need has two components. The first is what we
in Germany call a "Feindbild" -- an image of an enemy we can know with
certainty is evil and against whom we can rally. Interlinked with this
need -- and it is a BIOLOGICAL need rather than an INTELLECTUAL need -- is
the second component: the desire for an ordered, predictable view of the
world. Bingo -- Chomsky provides that as well.
(So, by the way, does the MOQ -- which Pirsig makes abundantly clear when he
talks about our need for a paradigm, but the MOQ also acknowledges this
need, and the existance of this need is why Pirsig invites us to shoot holes
in the MOQ, which is what this forum began by doing).'
The need for a "Feindbild" belongs to the social level (it keeps societies
together) and not to the biological level (it doesn't keep species or
ecosystems together).
The need for a view of the world as ordered and predictable belongs to the
intellectual level (it keeps systems of ideas together). It is a lower
quality intellectual pattern of value than a worldview that allows for
chaos/freedom and complexity.
I didn't read Chomsky. From what I read on this list about him, his writings
can be used by some of his readers to meet these needs. (Is there an
organized group of Chomsky fans alias America haters held together by a
"Feindbild" derived from his writings?) I don't know how many actually do. I
suppose that this would be against his intentions. (But I cannot prove that,
neither having read, nor having time to read him.)
The important thing is NOT to use his writings in that way. That must be
possible too. (How easy or how difficult that is, is another thing difficult
to assess for me, not having read him.) In order to judge the morality of
ideas derived from his writings, one has to look at their context (the
context in which the reader applies them, that is) and ... their
alternatives.
What societies do we need and how do we keep them together if not with a
"Feindbild"?
How do we apply our worldviews, to what extent should it be ordered/allowing
for chaos/freedom and predictable/complex to be applicable in this context
and to what extent can we use the facts and opinions compiled by Chomsky to
substantiate such a worldview?
Yes, the MoQ and the "Feindbild" of SOM contributes to holding together the
group of contributors here. The extent to which we allow each other to
deviate from Pirsig's writings determines part of the morality of what we
are doing here. To some extent (compared to mysticism, as Pirsig did in
'Lila') formulating metaphysics is relatively immoral. It's a fact of life
that we are addicted to it anyway.
Where exactly did Pirsig invite us to shoot holes in his version of the MoQ?
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 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 06:19:23 BST