[MD] Hippies (and Humour) in the Middle East

[ian glendinning]

Hey Arlo,

My rant about "ivory towers" was a shout into the void, not aimed at
you. I already knew you understood :-)

Ian

On 2/9/06, Arlo J. Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Ian said]
> I see this "easier" aspect a recurring theme in these complex debates
> where simple politics are wishful thinking. It's one of the reasons
> I'm passionate about the idea that whatever metaphysics / philosophies
> we end up sharing (here or anywhere) they absolutely must be pragmatic - easy to
> apply - starting from where we are now, not in idealised ivory towers.
>
> [Arlo]
> Understood, Ian. I am guilty of being somewhat faceious. I am thinking more in
> line with Peirce's hierarchy of belief fixation, where at the level of
> authority, the effort required to sustain belief is minimal, because one places
> that burden of effort on the Authority of Others.
>
> Of course, I'm sure Peirce would argue, that this minimal effort is a result of
> the proportionality said Authroity held sway. Believing in Catholicism in Italy
> (if one relies on Authority) is much easier than believing in Catholicism in
> Iran. So it is a function not only of transferring effort to others, but of
> being in the circumference of that Authority's power. (What would be "easiest"
> for the displaced Catholic would be to reject Catholicism and embrace Islam.)
>
> The trouble is, of course, fixing one's belief by virtue of the ideology of the
> authority necessitates abandoning all historical perspectives that challenge
> the ideology. The "other" becomes at once and always deceitful, threatening,
> biased, and villified, because "others" pose a threat to the diameter of
> Authority's influence. One then has the choice to become an agent of agression
> for the Authority, or face the path of finding a new means to fix belief (for
> doubt is, to Peirce, an "irritating" condition).
>
> I know this isn't exactly what you are saying, I think what I'm getting at is
> that I recognize "easy" to be a relative term, and wasn't asserting an absolute
> on those who adhere to the Will of Ideology, and those who challenge it. This
> ease, I'd say, is relative to the actual power wielded by the Ideology at any
> historical point. So for Platt, its "easy" to abandon all perspective to
> whatever the Ideology demands, because that ideology maintains viable power and
> popular support in our nation. Were Platt living in Stalin's Soviet Union, his
> adherence to the will of his ideology would take great effort.
>
> But even Peirce would say that an abandonment of will to Authority is not an
> effortless position, no matter the depth of power wielded by the Authority, and
> even if there is unanimous adherence to that Authority in one's culture,
> because it demands that any given individual who encounters any fact or
> suddenly has a moment of questioning, must expend energy to push that aside and
> to bury it deep in one's mind.
>
> Alright, mate. Now I am rambling. Blame it on the fact that I am only half way
> through my first cup o' joe. Glad you are planning on joining us in the bunker.
>
> Arlo
> 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/
>