From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 21 2004 - 18:51:25 BST
Hi Platt,
>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.
You're right, I do despise the "conservative/liberal" dichotomy, because I
think it enforces the illusion that you have to side with one time all the
time. Rather, that one side is a champion of good, while the other is the
epitome of evil. It may surprise you that over the past 10 years (in
national, state and local elections), I have voted for primarily
liberatarian, green and other "third party" candidates, several republicans
and several democrats. The "two party dichotomy" also, in my opinion,
enforces a lack of critical understanding among the populace by catering to
the dialogue "I'm a republican/democrat, so all I need to do is just to
vote for my party."
What disturbs me the most (and maybe you'll agree) is that in as long as I
can remember, I have had to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in our
national elections. Pathetic. Anyways....
On a side not, I am interested in your views of gay marriage, since you
seem to support Bush, and he has promised to support an amendment banning
it. Is this not a classic conflict between "social values" and
"Intellectual values"?
>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."
It may be. Socio-cultural theory would agree with this, maybe replacing
"the brain" with "language". Either way, one of the things that sets us
apart from other species is our ability to negotiate an understanding of
the world. I'm not sure how the MOQ would address this, though.
>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."
"Often". However, the Intellectual is dependant on the social (as the
social is on the biological, and the biological the inorganic). Thus,
though the Intellectual often opposes social patterns (namely those that
threaten its existence- higher level holds the moral right to preserve its
existence against lower level threats), it requires social patterns to
exist. Without social static latching, not only would each individual would
need to "recreate" the entire edifice of knowledge anew, he/she would be
spending so much time "surviving" that there would be little time left over
for Intellectual pursuits.
Thus, I would argue, that the Intellectual requires a healthy and sound
social level that provides stability, while at the same time ensuring that
social level values do not threaten Intellectual values. The idea of open
education or universal health care do no oppose this. Indeed, I may argue,
the opposite; they strengthen it.
>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.
I think I'd agree with Paul's comments here. "Success or failure" is not
solely an Intellectual level event, it occurs on the biological and social
levels as well. Furthermore, I do not "champion social patterns" period, I
champion social patterns that maximize the freedom for the greatest number
of citizens to "succeed or fail". That is to say that individuals succeed
or fail not simply because of their intellectual powers (unless you believe
that the majority of individuals in this country and the world are somehow
"stupid"), they succeed or fail largely due to the social patterns they
exist within. Finally, although you don't say it here, I would point out
that "success of failure" at the Intellectual level is not measured by
wealth, except in the current dialogue of capitalism-- sorry, had to say it
:-)--- wealth is a social measure of success or failure. Robert Pirsig is a
greater "success" than Bill Gates ever will 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."
Except that this is not a dichotomy (as I oppose them). It is a
tetrachotomy (I had to look that up). But the tension here is that though
the conflict is fierce, if Intellect (as it is morally dictated to do)
completely destroys society if threatened, it ipso facto destroys itself.
So it is not a dichotomy of "Intellect" OR "society", where one could be
eliminated and everything would be fine. The conflict is not where
Intellect must destroy society, but one where Intellect must maintain its
superiority while preserving the levels that give it life. Simply, it is
not a struggle for one or the other, it is a struggle for dominance.
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 : Wed Jul 21 2004 - 18:49:38 BST