[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[david buchanan]

Arlo, Scott and all MOQers:

Arlo said to 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.

dmb replies:
Right. I think one of the interesting thing about this notion is that its 
part of Pirsig's larger theory about the transmission and absorbtion of 
values from one society to another. Unlike the usual academic approach, he's 
saying that this transfer occurs unconsciously and without intention, that 
we can fail to notice these absorbed traits in ourselves and may even resent 
it when its pointed out. You know, the cowboy exhibits the qualities of the 
Indian even while he hates the Indian. Poor, white southerners might hate 
black people depite the fact that he is partly formed by African culture. 
And maybe, secretly, some genes too. I think this is not just a useful idea. 
Its kind of fun and amazing. Makes me wonder how many fusions there have 
been and what mixtures may come. Somehow, it makes culture and history seem 
more fluid and... well, dynamic.

Arlo continued:
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.

dmb replies:
I'd be more amused if there weren't so many people with the same attitudes. 
I don't know. Maybe I'm just a "party jester", but I can't help but believe 
the USA is in the midst of a rather serious political crisis and our obtuse 
friend is a prime example of the problem. By the way, if you are interested 
in the founders of the Heritage Foundation and the whole right-wing echo 
chamber of psuedo-think tanks and bogus journalism you might want to check 
out Paul Weyrich. For a look at the most recent lies and distortions put out 
by this machine, you might want to check out mediamatters.org

Arlo said to dmb:
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.

dmb replies:
Right. Even if the idea could be located somewhere in ancient or medieval 
Europe, I think its safe to say that it really began to animate Europeans 
only after the encounter with the New World. It must have looked like Eden 
compared to the Old World. That just happened to be a time in history when 
the intelligentisa was skeptical of all church doctrines and the noble 
savage was a very useful concept in combating the concept of original sin. I 
think this idea goes along quite nicely with what you were saying about the 
liberal and conservative conceptions of "man's nature" a while back.

Arlo said:
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.

dmb says:
Right. This tension exists in the American culture generally and within each 
American. I recognize this tension in myself, for whatever that's worth. You 
know how they used to say that Michael J Fox "ain't got no Elvis in him"? In 
Pirsigian terms, I think that mean he is mostly European and not very 
African or Indian. He has put the emphasis too much on one of the influences 
instead of mixing them in a more balanced way. Its not about Elvis or 
Michael, bless his heart. Its just a thought about how these cultural 
fusions are noticed and described in the everyday world of pop culture.

Arlo said:
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).

dmb says:
Right. Platt ain't got no Elvis in him. To be polite about it, he's 
anti-liberal, anti-intellectual and otherwise exhibits the attitudes of the 
current neo-Victorians, theocons, crypto-fascists, quasi-fasicits, 
semi-theocrats or whatever else we want to call it. It is what it is and if 
you want to know what it is, just listen to Platt or Rush or Hannity or 
Horowitz. They all echo of the same voice.

Arlo said:
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 
Buchanan says, well, that's his shame, not yours or mine.

dmb says:
Patrick Buchanan happens to be my dad's uncle. Don't you dare say anything 
bad about uncle Pat. He's a great man. So what if he grew up in a household 
with framed pictures of Mussolini nailed to the wall? Just kidding. We're 
not related. But the thing about Mussolini in his home is true. And I think 
that only makes sense.

Anyway, I like Pirsig's analysis because it explains why America has always 
had trouble living up to her ideals about freedom and equality. Unlike the 
Indians, for whom it was NOT just a doctrine but a lived reality, the 
European part of the American personality has a certain aversion to these 
values, isn't really very comfortable with freedom and equality when the 
rubber hits the road. We see this tension plainly in the fact that the 
Declaration's famous line about equality being self-evident was authored by 
an owner of slaves. We see this tension today when mere mention of the word 
"equality" can touch off an anti-communist rant. Interesting that 
conservatives like Platt see equality as necessarily entailing a tyrannical 
social order instead seeing it as a necessary feature of freedom. Speaking 
of rants...

I think we are in the process of reducing freedom and increasing order and 
I'm saddened by the fact that so many Americans don't see this as a problem 
and are willing to go along with this. When did Americans decide that it was 
ok for the government to tap their phones without a warrant or put people in 
prison without due process? When did torture become acceptable? Doesn't 
anybody care the the voting machines are uncheckable, unverifiable and are 
manufactured by an ardent supporter of one party over the other? There are 
two Downing street memos and the former head of the CIA in Europe all say 
the administration invented a reason to invade Iraq. They all say the facts 
were fixed around the policy. Typical! And their prude, prude attitude about 
birth control has lead to how many AIDS-related deaths in Africa? How many 
of these "leaders" have been charged with bribery and dirty dealing? How 
many more will indictments and investigations will there be if this crowd 
looses control in the House or Senate? How much worse does it have to get 
before democracy becomes a meaningless word? I'm Ok with a little tension, 
but this is something else. This is really freakin creepy, don't you think?

Tony Snow as press secretary. That's just perfect. As a FOX news guy, he's 
used to preaching to the choir, but it was funny to see him on Bill Maher's 
HBO show. Granted, the show draws a liberal audience. Still, I was struck by 
the intensity of the laughter. Not that Tony Snow is funny or was even 
trying to be funny. They were laughing at his explanations and apologies for 
the Republicans. Imagine you trying to make a serious point about American 
politics in front of a whole group and they spontaneously erupt into 
laughter because they find the point so absurd and ridiculous. He didn't 
seem to understand what was happening. The audience literally found his 
assertions to be laughable. It seemed quite genuine too, not that fake 
mocking laughter. Anyway, its gonna be fun to watch him as press secretary - 
fun in a sick, twisted sort of way. It'll be an irony bomb every day. He's a 
dork that doesn't know he's a dork, which is the worst kind. He's the kind 
of guy who can imagine he's a jammin' rock star even while he plays the 
flute at a "rock and roll camp" for adults. No kidding. Its on tape.

Tell me when I cross the line from naughty into sadistic. Not that Ill step 
back, I just wanna know.

Sorry about all the digressions, but if you guys can talk about the Marxist 
features of a motorcycle tax in this thread "on indian values", then I guess 
you'll cut me some slack there. I'm just having fun.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963