[MD] Barbarian attack

[David M]

Hi folks

Does not religion exist on all the human levels?
There are religious forms dealing with nature,
with the cosmos, with tribal life/rural life, with
social/civilised/urban life, with intellectual life.
The values we live by are always close to
religious forms of thought. Religion  evolves via
DQ like all else. Our gods, our forms of human
gatherings, our relationship with authority all
evolve. Limiting the idea of religion to that
particular form attacked by Enlightenment
philosophes is rather problematic.

DavidM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden at davtv.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Barbarian attack


> Scott: 
> 
>> Platt said:
>> I thought that was what philosophy, and in a broader sense, a liberal
>> education was for. I'm confident you would have little trouble judging a
>> superior culture from an inferior one. In any case, one of the benefits
>> of the MOQ is that it gives us ability to answer such questions on a
>> rational, rather than an emotional or religious, basis.
>> 
>> Scott:
>> Since I don't consider religion and rationality to be incompatible, I
>> guess in your sights I am unable to judge a superior culture.
> 
> Pirsig finds religion and rationality incompatible in the sense that 
> the former is a social value and the latter an intellectual value. Like 
> other levels, each fights to dominate the other. I mention this to 
> point out your disagreement with Pirsig. Personally, I'll take  
> Pirsig's view over yours. No offense. :-)   
> 
>> My
>> criterion for a superior culture is one where everyone has the same
>> rational/religious outlook as I do. Of course, it would be very boring
>> :)
> 
> My criterion for a superior culture is one that protects intellectual 
> values and allows free discourse such as we are engaged in at the 
> moment.
> 
>> Nevertheless, note that the MOQ is a product of our culture. How would
>> you answer someone who claims that you are judging your ability to judge
>> cultures by criteria peculiar to your own culture?
> 
> I would claim that some cultures are better than others in enhancing 
> and protecting intellectual values, rejecting outright multicultural 
> political correctness that punishes one for judging one culture better 
> than another. 
> 
>> Platt said:
>> Thanks for the recommendation[ of Armstrong's *Islam*].
>>  But, can you tell me if the book says a
>> majority of Muslims support the terrorists and are spoiling for a fight
>> with the West? If so, a clash of civilizations seems inevitable.
>> 
>> The book indicates that no, the majority is not spoiling for a fight.
>> However, the book also indicates that what is happening is that there is
>> a clash of civilizations. From your question, are you saying that if a
>> culture does not want to live as Westerners do they are spoiling for a
>> fight?
> 
> No. But a culture that condones flying airplanes into buildings in a 
> surprise attack killing 3,000 innocent civilians is spoiling for a 
> fight.
> 
>> Platt said: You suggest Ataturk and the generals were bad guys.
>> Wikipedia tells a different story. Looks like the "generals" brought
>> Turkey into the 20th century. Don't you think a republican
>> constitutional democracy is better than a dictatorship?
>> 
>> Scott:
>> For much of the last 80 years Turkey was a dictatorship. I'm not sure I
>> would say Ataturk and the generals were "bad guys", or no worse than
>> other dictators. What I would say is that I prefer persuasion to force.
> 
> The write up about Turkey in Wikipedia doesn't quite paint the picture 
> of dictatorial force that you do. Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong.
> 
>> > Scott:
>> > I will point out, though, that you didn't answer the
>> > question. Military occupation is one thing, settling Israelis in
>> > occupied territory is another.
>> 
>> Platt said:
>> IMO its a distinction without a difference.
>> 
>> Scott:
>> You see no difference between violating international law and not
>> violating it? Or if you aren't a stickler for rules, do you see no
>> difference between "we are going to control this area until you are not
>> a threat to us" and "we are going to take choice pieces of your land
>> from you"?
> 
> I would ask, "Since you violated international law by invading us do 
> you not see why we will occupy this land in self-defense? Do you not 
> understand that you brought this on yourselves by illegally initiating 
> physical force against us?" 
> 
> Platt
> 
> 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/
>