[MD] Neoconservatism

[Heather Perella]

Hello dmb, craig, and others,

     db said:  "The social darwinists were basically
offering a secular 
version of properity theology in which rich people
were rich becasue god loved them more than the 'lazy,
stupid masses'."

     Some deeper history, that rings similar is the
notion of this propriety theology which landed in the
Americas ca. 17th century, most notably in the present
state of Massachusetts namely as the Puritans.  I
believe this idea also has its' roots in the
Calvinistic predestination approach to spirituality
that came from and was in Europe for some generations
way before the European discovery of the Americas.

     Craig, that's very interesting what Rorty said
about how politics and philosophy don't fit together. 
I was thinking about this today.  It makes sense on
Pirsig's levels, too.  Philosophy is on the
intellectual level, and politics are on the social
level.  When are politics, not just the politicians,
but society, as well, thinking intellectually.  The
beast is on its' own independent level.  The
intellectual can support or conflict with this level,
but when is everybody in politics making total sense
to each other all - I mean all the time. 
Intellectually we interject into the social level, and
the social level interjects into the biological level
so on down the levels.  Yet, can a society ever be
totally intellectual?  I mean are not the levels
independent due to this very question not being a
possibility.  The social level is holding together. 
The intellectual level can either tear it apart or
help hold it together, but the social level will never
be fully intellectual according to Pirsig's levels. 
Is this correct?  Is the intellectual level of
philosophy independent at a certain point (where that
point is located I don't know) from the social level?
     Yet, again, this question might be arising
because of my indecision as to whether politics and
philosophy are due to (1) what Arlo thinks which is
the intellectual level is made up of a collective,
whereas (2) I have thought the intellectual level
pulls away from the collective (which I think belongs
on the social level) and it is the individual person
on the intellectual level.  I am not totally convinced
that the individual person or a collective of people
occupy the intellectual level.  This is still a
question to me.  
     This idea of collective versus individual might
have something to do with whether somebody concludes
politics does or does not independently work outside
of philosophy?  So does politics intermingle with a
philosopher and shape the conclusions of a
philosopher?  And/or will a philosopher (on the
intellectual level?), be intellectually or politically
intertwining with the societal level?  A philosopher
could either be (1) connecting with societal level
intellectually or (2) politically or (3) only one not
the other or (4) both at the same time with no clear
distinction that a philosopher is at one moment in
time intellectually speaking and at another moment in
time politically speaking?  Can these discussions by a
philosopher be separated or are all discussions by a
philosopher both intellectual and political all at the
same time?
     I kept rephrasing the question so the question
came out as clear as possible to my liking - which
gets unsettled at times.  I hope the question I am
asking comes across clearly, I apologize if not.

Thanks,
SA  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com