From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jul 18 2004 - 21:17:15 BST
Hi Arlo,
> 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.
I agree that we are going back and forth fairly endlessly with the two of
us accomplishing little more than arriving at the sort of dichotomy you
despise -- namely, me voting for one candidate and you his opponent.
Our discussion illustrates 1) how strongly experience colors one's values,
2) the pronounced division between liberals and conservatives that
characterizes the US in this election year.
The source of the following quote escapes me, but I think it applies: "The
human brain is, in large part, a machine for winning arguments, a machine
for convincing others that its owner is in the right -- and thus a machine
for convincing its owner of the same thing. The brain is like a good
lawyer: given any set of interests to defend, it sets about convincing the
world of their moral and logical worth, regardless of whether they in fact
have any of either."
This coincides with Pirsig's idea that truth is a species of good, to be
determined like selecting paintings in a gallery, "not to find which one
is the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of
value." (Lila, 8) That you and I have different ideas of what's "of value"
is not surprising "because each person has a different static pattern of
life history." (SODV)
Given my life history, I was struck by the following sentence from
Pirsig's SODV paper, nodding my head in approval:
"Intellectual values of truth and freedom of opinion often oppose social
patterns of government."
Add to that the following from Lila, Chp. 24:
"Biology beat death billions of years ago. Society beat biology thousands
of years ago. But intellect and society are still fighting it out, and
that is the key to an understanding of both the Victorians and the
twentieth century."
Perhaps our debate is a reflection of this "fight," with you championing
the social patterns in the name of the public good and I holding out for
the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail on his own, using such
intellectual powers as he is able to muster to make decisions for himself
and enjoy or suffer the consequences, whatever they may be.
You will probably retort that this is another of Platt's dichotomies which
don't reflect the "real world." To that I cite the following dichotomies
from Pirsig:
"Intellect has its own patterns and goals that are as independent of
society as society is independent of biology. A value metaphysics makes it
possible to .see that there's a conflict between intellect and society
that's just as fierce as the conflict between society and biology or the
conflict between biology and death."
Anyway, I would by interested in you thoughts on the above in an effort to
move our conversation more towards Pirsig's metaphysics, realizing of
course that our particular life histories will always influence our
respective beliefs and values..
Platt
P.S. I appreciate your restraint from attacking me personally even though
you strongly disagree with many of my views.
> > 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 - 21:27:28 BST