[MD] Whose Freedom?

[ian glendinning]

Marsha, Arlo,

I've watched the talk. In some ways it's disappointing his focus is a
Bush speech, since it puts him squarely on a political platform, which
of course he is these days. In fact although his subject is freedom,
and party political differences of interpretation, he's using his
metaphors argument for the kind mental model evolved in people's
brains for the contested versions of freedom, even though the core
aspect is emotionally felt, directly sensed, visceral as he puts it.

I love the idea he stresses that stupidity and meanness are not to be
associated with the competing views of freedom. "George Bush is not
incompetent." (Skilled incompetetence is a well practiced management
technique.)

Marsha, you said of the distinction between "clear" conservative
definition and "unclear" liberal (or progressive) defintion of freedom
...
[Quote]
I can imagine how difficult this makes the political discussion.
[Unquote]

This problem, the lack of simple direct causal logic, to support
progressive arguments is a Catch-22 in the cause of progress.
Conservativism is by definition regressive, but has the blunt tool of
simple logic on its side. I think this is the downward cultural spiral
we seem to see.

As I say it's a pity he uses the competitive political position (a
binary argument) as his subject matter (I guess it draws the crowds
and the media), because he says a lot of good stuff on the core
problem we face. That damn Catch-22 again.

Regards
Ian

On 8/29/06, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Marsha]
> I'm looking forward to reading what Mr. Lakoff adds to the pot of freedom.
>
> [Arlo]
> George Lakoff's work should be (and is) greatly appreciated. His dominant, or
> most well-know, ideas revolve around cultural metaphor. That is, it's not just
> that we use metaphor is our language, but our language is structured by
> underlying cultural metaphors. These guide not only word choice, but also how
> we conceptualize various activities. His most well-known example is probably
> "argument is a war". In English, our thinking, our describing, our very
> understanding of what an argument "is" is structured by the idea that it is
> metaphorically "war". Examples, "I won that argument", "He was doing well until
> I brought out the big guns", "I demolished his position", etc. In contrast,
> several latino cultures view argument not as a "war", but as a "dance". As such
> "victory" is absent from discussions about arguments, with successful arguments
> being one where BOTH "partners" achieve fluidity and eloquence. Blocking your
> partners steps in this "dance" does not "win" but rather "interrupts" a
> successful argument.
>
> "Freedom", of course, works the same way. I had a Swedish friend tell me once
> that he considers his people MORE free (than us) because while we are forced to
> spend so much time and effort worrying about and securing health care, working
> long hours to pay enormous medical bills, spouses taking second jobs just to
> cover the months insurance costs, etc., they can pursue more personally
> stimulating activities (painting, reading, skiing, etc.) "free" from the worry
> that if they become sick they will have no way to get treatment. The Native
> American and Aborignals (at the risk of overgeneralizing) would view our lives
> today as anything BUT free. Most of our land is "private", we can't go wherever
> we want. We would be seen as slaves to property, not free men.
>
> At any rate, Lakoff is certainly worth the time to read. His work, both academic
> and popular, is well thought and well articulated.
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>