From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 18 2004 - 16:18:43 BST
Hi Platt....
There's some of this we could likely go back and forth on endlessly, in the
interest of the other MOQers, I'm only going to respond to certain points. If
there is anything in particular you'd like me respond to otherwise, just let me
know.
> If "ideas" are intellectual values, then the idea of free cars and free
computers
> for everyone are intellectual values. That's ridiculous. Intellectual
> values are not meant to focus on specific material things, but rather on
> freedom to think and speak and insure protection of one's privacy from the
> heavy hand of government through constitutional guarantees. At least
> that's what Pirsig indicates.
>
That's not really what I meant. Creating an infrastructure supporting the
greatest mobility is not something an individual (or I'd say business) could
provide. The "government", then, is charged with creating and maintaining the
infrastructure, the individuals can then make us of this accordingly. I do not
favor "free cars", that's ridiculous, but I do favor society maintaining public
mass transit for individuals who are unable to purchase individual means of
transportation (cars, Harleys, etc...).
Continuing, "free computers for everyone" is not an Intellectual value.
Maintaing a funtional and accessible Internet so that a citizenry can access
information to make informed decisions, is an Intellectual value.
So, I am not focusing anything on material things. I am focusing on reason and
building/supporting an infrastructure that maximizes the freedoms of its
citizens.
> > Suffice it to
> > say that we all have to pay for things that we don't personally agree with.
>
> Ain't it the truth. But, does it have to be that way?
>
I think it does, or else society would collapse, no? I doubt we could find
anything on which we could build a universal consensus.
>
> I don't think it's "dialogue" that values. People value.
>
Not outside of the dialogue of their culture they don't. Too many static
filters.
It's Pirsig's "figure sorting the sand into piles" analogy. The figure sorts
based on a lot of unconscious categorization that is learned through being
"enculturated". We interact with the world through language (mediation) and the
artifacts of the culture. These predispose (static latching) individuals to
"see things" or "not see things" particular ways. And to "value" or "not
value". Consider Pirsig's "green flash of the sun", he never saw it because his
"culture" never presented it as "valuable".
As a side examlpe, consider that in English, "argument" is embedded in the
dialogue as "war" (I won that argument, He blasted me out of the water, I
brought all the bigs guns out, She knocked all my defenses down)... We can make
these metaphors visible, but they shape they way an English speaker "thinks"
about "argument". In Spanish (I'm speaking of the Mexican states here),
"argument" is embedded metaphorically as "play". And so the whole concept of
what an argument is, is different.
My point is that we don't "value" anything outside of the dialogue we are
immersed, the cultural context we are situated in. Pirsig seems to believe we
can change our valuations, if we change the cultural context (which includes,
or may be synomous with the dialogue).
Moreover, you say that "changing the dialogue" is illusory (my term, not yours),
but yet the "right" in this nation have been doing this successfully and with
measurable impact over the last few years. For example, the "right" has
successfully synomized "dissent" with "being unpatriotic" (although hopefully
reason is undoing this travesty). The whole idea of equating "universal health
care" with a "redistribution of wealth", is desgined to avoid fair dialogue on
the subject by appealing to old fears of communism. Indeed, the dichotomy
itself between "modern american capitalism" and "eastern bloc socialism" is an
attempt to control the dialogue by presenting the idea that there are no other
alternatives, and any critical reaction to inequites is somehow favoring all
the buzzwords we fear about socialism/communism.
> > >Inequities in the system mean the system is obvious flawed? Is that a plea
> > >for redistribution of wealth, whether deserved or not?
>
> > Back to that dichotomy again, are we? "As it is" or communistic
> > "redistribution of wealth"... nothing else?
>
> Again, you duck the question.
>
I do not favor the redistribution of wealth. I am simply stating that being
vocal against inequities does not in any way imply support for wealth
redistribution (deserved or not). It is a false duality.
> Did I ever claim capitalism was perfect?
>
No, you did not.
> > > > So, basically, they (UC) can do whatever they want, so long as the
> > > prices of
> > > > good in the marketplace stay cheap?
> > >
> > >As said repeatedly, no one can do "whatever they want."
> >
> > Really? Seems to me the examples we've been talking about demonstrate
> > otherwise?
>
> You don't really read my posts do you? Several times I've brought up the
> common law.
>
Touche.
> > Should the highways be sold to private businesses?
>
> Too late to go back now. Roads could have evolved differently, like the
> railroads.
>
Um, didn't the railroads pretty much collapse (to simplify) when trucking poured
money into laws undercutting railroading in favor of highway shipping? It's
actually a shame that business decided the fate of the rails. Who "valued"
roads over rails? A few businessmen who made a lot of money? You? Me? It was
pretty much the decision of a few capitalists who decided the infrastructure
for the entire population.
> > >Japan, a regimented society with a policy of ethnic purity, has a culture
> > >that encourages and rewards educational excellence.
>
> > Oooo... wait.... did you say "ethnic purity"? Platt, can you please tell me
> > what this has anything to do with educational success (let alone anything
> > else)?
>
> Cultural values have a lot to do with educational success or the lack of
> it..
>
Certainly cultural values have a lot to do with educational success, but what
does this have to do with ethnic purity?
Don't be coy, Platt, it sounds to me like a thinly vieled "KKK-ism" for blaming
the educational failings in this country on the presence of Blacks and Latinos
(by blaming their "cultures", whatever that means). I'm hoping I'm wrong, and
look forward to hearing you explain.
> > >Anybody suggest to them to stop whining and move on?
>
> > Move on? To what? Where?
>
> Hit one of the your "free" roads to a better job (or just a job) anywhere.
>
Here I wonder if you're just trying to antagonize me.
> >I take it you don't spend much time among the real
> > people in this country.
>
> Losers are "the real people?"
>
Here I'm pretty sure of it.
but we'd have to be watchful that it would not instead create a
> > system where only the "wealthy" could run for office. Much as we need
> > reform, a plutocracy is not the direction we should go.
>
> Tell that to millionaires Bush, Cheny, Kerry and what's his name, the
> trial lawyer.
>
Oh, I agree with you here too. We need reform, most certainly. How would you
suggest we restructure campaigning so that you needn't be a millionaire to run
(or have a millionaire in your back pocket)?
One thing we may agree on, I'm guessing based on what you seem to be saying, is
that the whole "republican/democrat" two-party dichotomy has to go.
Arlo
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 Jul 18 2004 - 16:42:42 BST