[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[DMB]
I'm with Arlo here. As I understand it, the European political philosophers 
"formalized" ideas about freedom and equality during the Enlightenment  period
as a response to the "noble savage" encountered in the new world. {snip
explaination and Pirsig quote}

[Arlo]
Hi DMB. You know what's funny to me, is that Pirsig advanced the notion of the
Indian origin to the idea (admittedly from Sidis as well) as a contrast to the
"academics" that refused such an idea.

Platt dismisses everything, of course, that isn't sanctioned by the Heritage
Foundation, but its still funny to see him rage against academics for agreeing
with Pirsig. This gives me much amusement.

To be fair to Scott, whom I believe to be legitimately concerned with this
claim, I can understand that this must be like a chicken-egg question. Pirsig's
valid point is that before the Indian-European "value collision", there is
little evidence that the European mindset considered "all men created as
equal". Two-thousand years post-0000, and all I see is a history of "social
superiority". So, I am inclined to agree with Pirsig. But, I don't hold it as
impossible, or extraordinary, that some rumblings within Europe advanced this
notion prior to the IE-collision.

Like Pirsig said, to the Indian, "men as equal" was not a doctrine, but simply
"how things were". Pirsig, following Dusenberry and the other anthropologists
he cites positively, obviously believed the Indian-value impact was important,
that Indian-values were part of the American psyche, and that the Victorian
"social superiority" and Indian "social equality" values we hold are a source
of strong internal conflict.

It's small wonder that those who argue day-in and day-out for a return to
Victorianism would actively deny the Indian values, but Scott does ask a fair
historical question (I know, DMB, you know this, I'm just sayin' is all), and
one that is likely more complicated than either "its all Indian" or "its all
European" (the idiocy advanced from the Party Jesters).

Personally, again, I side with Pirsig. He researched this. I trust his
judgement. And I find it makes sense in a common-sense sort of way. If the
Party Jester wants to ignore Pirsig whenever he contradicts what Pat Buchanon
says, well, that's his shame, not yours or mine.

Arlo