[MD] Neoconservatism

[david buchanan]

Gene, Steve and y'all:

Gene said:
It's true, I have a lot of trouble in my mind differentiating between social 
and intellectual levels sometimes.

dmb says:
You have lots of company, but one good way to start thinking about the 
difference is to think about the main purpose of social values as it is 
opposed to the main purpose of intellectual values. The moral codes get at 
this difference quite nicely. As Pirsig puts it in Lila...

"The MOQ suggests that the social chaos of the 20th century can be relieved 
by going back to this point of departure and re-evaluating the path taken 
from it. It says it is immoral for intellect to be dominated by society for 
the same reasons it is immoral for children to be dominated by their
parents. But that doesn't mean that children should assassinate their 
parents, and it doesn't mean intellectuals should assassinate society. 
Intellect can support static patterns of society without fear of domination 
by carefully distinguishing those moral issues that social-biological from 
those that are intellectual-social and making sure there is no encroachment 
either way."

dmb continues:
The thing to notice here is that "social-biological" morals are what we 
traditionally think of as church morals, the prohibitions against vice, 
Victorian virtues and such. I mean, traditional social level morality is 
aimed at controlling biological desires. The ten commandments basically 
express this level of morality. From this level of morality, preservation of 
the society takes precedence over the survival of any particular 
individuals. Society is considered to be a higher form of quality than the 
biological organisms which inhabit it. By constrast, the intellectual-social 
values say that intellect is more evolved and society has no moral right to 
prohibit intellectual activity. In this moral code, society is the junior 
partner, the lesser evolved set of values. Pirsig lists some of the rights 
named in the Bill of Rights as example of intellectual moral values. And we 
can see that these are the principles that prevent society from standing in 
the way of intellectual freedom and progesss.

And you may have noticed that this is exactly what I've been trying to get 
at in this thread. As I understand it, the Staussians and other 
neo-conservative types believe that individual rights are the problem and 
that old-fashioned virtue is the solution. See, its no accident that the 
conservative movements in the United States have tended to emphasize things 
like abortion, homosexuality, family values and that sort of thing because 
they instinctively agree with this assessment, even if they never heard of 
Struass or neo-Conservatism. Most of them just get these ideas from the Rush 
Limbaughs and James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons and Bill Bennets or one of 
the other thousand points of bligt. To make matters worse, they are 
asserting these social-biological moral codes as if they were the only kind 
of morality and usually push them at the expense of those higher moral 
values. As I understand it, these two sets of values are at war in the world 
and drive the polticial conflicts in the United States every freakin' day of 
the week.

Thanks.
dmb

>
>Steve says:
>
>For me clarity comes from thinking about Pirsig's use
>of the term "pattern of value." The levels represent
>types of patterns of value rather than types of people
>or types of objects. Categories we use in every day
>language usually refer to collections of patterns of
>various types so those categories don't fall easily
>into MOQ levels. For example, when we refer to a
>specific person we don't mean a specific pattern but a
>bunch of patterns. The idea of this person as a whole
>unit is an inference from the patterns. In other
>words, Lila doesn't have the patterns of value, the
>patterns of value have Lila.
>
>Craig:
> >Mostly because I
> > feel Society perpetuates
> > most of the ideas in the world. Static Intellectual
> > Patterns are all given
> > to use at a young age by Society, things like 1+1=2.
> > So shouldn't we
> > consider them as also social patterns?
>
>Steve:
>Society does not equal the social level. Nor does it
>equal the values that society perpetuates. The social
>level refers to a type of pattern of value. I
>recognize this type of pattern as those that are
>perpetuated through unconscious copying of behavior.
>
>Biological patterns are maintained through DNA.
>
>Intellectual patterns are maintained through copying
>of rationales. We call our most stable intellectual
>patterns "true" or "common sense." We judge
>intellectual patterns based on consistency with other
>high quality intellectual patterns and consistency
>with experience. True and false only apply to the
>intellectual level.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>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/

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/