[MD] Another parallel

Sat Jul 11 13:08:52 PDT 2009


Protagoras:  "Man is the measure of all things.", or as Lila might 
have interpreted it 'All beliefs are true if you believe them.'


At 03:52 PM 7/11/2009, you wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:46 AM, david buchanan 
><dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > dmb quoted chapter 22 of Lila, which says:
> >
> > "this conflict explains the driving force behind Hitler not as an insane
> > search for power but as an all-consuming glorification of social authority
> > and hatred of intellectualism".
> >
> > John replied:
> >
> > What is the problem with intellectualism?  It's too dynamic.  Societies,
> > like egos, get comfortable in "their" patterns and despise dynamic change
> > which upsets working social patterns.
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > Not to be snarky, but aren't you defending social level values at the
> > expense of intellectual values?
>
>
>
>You can be snarky with me anytime, big boy.  I like it.  I wasn't clear.
>  You can especially be snarky if it's my fault.  I should have said, "What
>is the problem society has with intellectualism?"   I agree completely that
>it's an immoral response of society, but when something or somebody does
>something immoral, I want to know why.  I was analyzing why society commits
>the immorality of repressing intellectualism.  I mean, on the surface,
>intellectual advancement is a good thing for society, right?
>
>
>
> >
> > John said:
> >
> > By neo-victorians I assume you mean the bush gang, but I think you are
> > doing a serious disservice to the victorians.  The victorians had a
> > too-stiff morality but the bozos who've been in power got no 
> morality at all
> > except the Texas Cattle Baron brand -
> >
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > The Bush gang would definitely count but I'd guess that about half the
> > country could be counted as neo-Victorian.
>
>
>Nah, half the country are reactionary neo victorian cattle and the bush gang
>was an outfit of cowpokes out to rustle up some meaty profit, then retreat
>to their comfortable front porch rocking chairs and chuckle at the dems
>dealing with the cowflop.
>
>Wake up and smell the truth Dave.
>
>
>This conflict between social and intellectual values has driven our politics
> > for about 90 years
>
>
>Huh?  It's an eternal conflict, so what aspect are you referring to?
>
>
>
> > I think, it would be a truthful and useful generalization to say that
> > anyone whose registered as a Republican or regularly attends a
> > fundamentalist church is a neo-Victorian.
>
>
>I disagree with you on the truth or usefulness of such a generalization.  If
>you change your "or" to "both" I'll give it to you just cuz I'm in a nice
>mood,  except for the exceptions I named above which are the manipulators OF
>social patterns and thus do not really fall INTO the social patterns - the
>herders vs. the cattle.
>
>
>
>
> > Why? Because they're extremely likely to defend social level values at the
> > expense of intellectual values. Again, this is just the basic social vs.
> > intellectual scheme, the bare bones of the MOQ's political analysis.
>
>
>Yeah but don't make it sound like such a simple thing simply because you've
>got it figured out in your head.  That line between social level and
>intellectual level values can be such a tricky bastard at times.  Most often
>they coincide.  It's only when they conflict in people that we notice the
>conflict, and once you enter the stage of conflict and competition for
>ideas, you are in the realm of social conflict - politics, religion, -
>they're all about ideas, but when men hold these ideas they become social
>forces of conflict.  They divide up into schools of thought.  They don't
>think "about" what they are defending any more.
>
>
>
>
> > Bush calls himself a born-again christian, painted international relations
> > in stark terms of good and evil, said Jesus Christ was his favorite
> > philosopher (a comment mocked by Pirsig in a print interview), suppressed
> > all kinds of scientific information, and implemented a whole series of
> > policies that seriously disrespected international and constitutional human
> > rights laws. As far as American reactionaries go, Bush is among the worst.
>
>
>hey, what can I tell you.  I always vote for Nader, except I voted for Gore
>when he ran against Bush.  Sometimes evil wins.  Who could predict putting
>unseen pressure on the Supreme Court?  At the time we Californians were just
>sweating out the exponential increase in electricity needed to run our
>silicon valley halls of power and wondering who all these texas energy
>companies holding the rights to the waterin' hole were.  Enron?  What's
>that?
>
>Not that I think Jesus was a bad philosopher, international relations should
>be conducted in a neutral way or science is god.  I just think Bush used the
>hot buttons of the people.  The hot button being connected to a cattle prod
>that moved them the direction of power and profit to himself - or rather,
>his controller handlers.  The only reason he got away with all he
>accomplished was how reassuringly stupid he seemed.  Obviously he didn't
>have a nefarious agenda, he was too dumb.  Meanwhile Cheney, according to
>insider reports, would cackle over his briefings designed to get the great
>decider to go exactly where told.  I'll grant neo victorian cowdom to W as
>well, I guess.  But it was the gang running the show that caused the real
>problems.
>
>Not that there are any real problems.  Now that California can print its own
>money, we can just keep on spending to our heart's content with no budgeting
>needed.  Yay us.
>
>
> >
> > To be a Victorian in 1880 was just normal. To be a Victorian in 1980
> > (Thinking of Reagan) is reactionary. It was reactionary in the 1930s too,
> > when fascism was coming to power in Europe and that old school master was
> > trying to re-light that Victorian torch. In that sense, I agree that
> > equating today's reactionaries to yesterday's Victorians is a little unfair
> > to the latter. Same thing with today's fundamentalists. To call them
> > medieval is a little unfair to the people who lived in the middle 
> ages. Back
> > then, nobody had to deny well-established scientific truths in order to
> > maintain their religious beliefs.
> >
>
>Well there is a place where we really differ.  I see scientific truths as
>religious beliefs and the idea that they are "well established" reeking of
>SOMish misunderstanding.  But I doubt anything useful could be contributed
>on my part after all the Krimelization that has crystalized already.   But
>being a reactionary is probably quite a common occurence because of this
>aspect of change which intellectual advancement brings.  Somebody somewhere
>in society pays a price when society-wide change occurs, and its this
>reaction which defines reactionary, I'd guess.
>
>
>
> > dmb says:
> >
> > Well, I'd say the storm was less intense in the USA simply because WW I and
> > the Russian revolution happened on European soil and so most of 
> the millions
> > who died were Europeans. Besides that, all of the fascist movements that
> > emerged in Europe after the Great War relied quite heavily on their own
> > particular brand of redneck. In each case, (in Italy, Spain and Germany)
> > fascism existed as an alliance between the economic elites and the
> > uneducated mob. Franco, Mussolini and Hitler all came to power 
> with the help
> > of young thugs who were drunk with patriotism and saw themselves as the
> > defenders traditional morality.
>
>
>
>Does strike  a strong resemblance to joe six pack contractors and plumbers
>in their pickups with the W brand on their ass end.
>
>
>
> > This is the thing that makes fascism so hard to detect in one's own back
> > yard. Since it is essentially a vigorous, muscular reassertion of the
> > traditional social values, it seems so normal and comfortable. I mean, when
> > fascism emerges in Germany it is going to be very, very German. Naturally,
> > it's going to sound real good to a German right away. When it appears in
> > Italy it is going to be super, super Italian and so Italians are going love
> > it. Same thing in Spain or anywhere else. In the USA, fascism is 
> going to be
> > very, very American. The American fascist is going fly his flag, love his
> > country and think it the greatest.
>
>
>
>Ok here's something that really, really bugged me, and it may seem like a
>digression but I don't think it is.  After 9/11 I saw hundreds of these
>american flag bumper stickers for sale everywhere and on the bumpers and all
>over the place.  They all looked the same pretty much, with this waving
>american flag that was  a little longer than the proper proportions with
>FOLDS in it.  If it'd been straightened out it would have been hideous.  Not
>a flag at all, but a banner.  The american banner.   We don't do banners in
>this country.  We do flags.  China does banners.  Whoever signed off on the
>design back in China, cuz that's of course where they were made, figured it
>seemed fine and thus the patriotic american is proudly displaying his made
>in china banner on every single surface he can imagine it might look good.
>
>But it doesn't look good.  It looks stupid.  Just as stupid as the federal
>government going into high gear and requiring all nail clippers to be
>confiscated in the biggest case of slamming the barn door shut after the
>cows have escaped that history has ever witnessed.
>
>So no, it's not a digression, its agreement.   The fears you express over
>the similarity in the rise of fascism in Europe and the way the country is
>going now are good points.
>
>D]
>
>  . But, as I like to say, when fascism comes to America it'll talk like a
>cowboy and swagger down the street like John Wayne. He won't be wearing a
>swastika but he'll probably be wearing one of those little flag pins on his
>lapel. And he'll accuse those who don't wear one of being insufficiently
>patriotic.
>
>J]
>
>Well all I say is it better be aesthetically pleasing or I won't wear one.
>  Even if you shoot me.  No death is worse than fashion death.
>
>dmb says:
> >
> > Well, it's not so much about identifying the right intellectuals so much as
> > intellectual values themselves. There are professional people who can make
> > an intellectual argument in favor of social level values but they are still
> > defending social level values. One can be intellectually skilled and use
> > those skills for anti-intellectual causes.
>
>
>
>See what I mean about complicated??
>
>
>
>
> > dmb said:
> >
> > ... isn't it fair to say that the political right defends social level
> > values while the political left is identified with the intellectual level?
> >
> > John said:
> >
> > See?  I told you.  You've got a political argument on your hands just from
> > posing the solution that the left has all the intellectuals.  Sure it does,
> > but it's those same intellectuals that bug the hell out of the 
> other half of
> > the country and how do you propose to make them listen? I believe it is
> > possible, but intellectual governance has to come about on the basis of
> > individual choice.
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > Well, I was just hoping to have a fair and honest discussion here in this
> > little forum. The problem of trying to make half the country listen will
> > have to wait for another day. Heck, it might even take an entire weekend to
> > change the minds of 60 million voters. Just getting something going in this
> > little forum might be more than I can handle. The main point in posting all
> > those quotes about the conflict of levels was to show that it is the MOQ
> > that's "posing the solution that the left" defends intellectual values. My
> > personal political attitudes might agree with the MOQ's analysis but I'm
> > trying to show what the MOQ says, not what I think. Was my comment (above)
> > anything other than a paraphrase of the Pirsig quotes they were 
> attached to?
> > Pirsig describes communism, socialism and the New Deal as "programs for
> > intellectual control over society" and he describes fascism as "a program
> > for the social control of intellect" just like the Victorians and
> > neo-Victorian would have it. Is there a way to read these quotes so that it
> > is UNFAIR to say, "the political right defends social level 
> values while the
> > political left is identified with the intellectual level?"
> >
>
>Yes, there is a way.
>
>
> > See, I'm trying to get people to park their ideologies at the door and take
> > an honest look at what Pirsig is saying about politics.
>
>
>That's tough to do, you know.  The best way is usually lead by example ...
>
>
>
> > And here you're basically implying that a simple paraphrase of clear and
> > explicit quotes is somehow biased. You're implying that I'm "posing the
> > solution" as if those quotes weren't really Pirsig's words.
>
>
>
>No-o-o... I'm implying that your pose of a solution  carries your agenda -
>lefty bad, righty good.  It's too bald and self serving to be persuasive.
>  It creates a reaction that makes reactionaries react more.  You do have a
>bias and owning that is the part of know thyself that is more persuasive
>than repeating smart lefty, dumb righty, all day long till you're blue in
>the face.
>
>But I get you Dave.  You're a problem solver, not a problem reiterator and
>I'm on your side.
>
>Don't let it go to your head.  I'm on everybody's side.
>
>
>
>
>
> > That sort of thing makes me a little crazy. I think to myself, does their
> > copy of Lila differ from mine? Do the words get scrambled somewhere between
> > my keyboard and their mail box? Are the quotes written in an 
> invisible font?
> > At the risk of belaboring the obvious, isn't Pirsig's scheme completely
> > simple and, um, obvious? It's all expressed quite explicitly, 
> without jargon
> > and with tons of historical examples. I can see how a conservative person
> > wouldn't LIKE it, but I really don't see how a fair or honest person can
> > dispute what Pirsig said or the fact that he said it.
>
>
>
>
>But there are parts I see that are just as big and meaningful to me.  Where
>he describes the necessity for a driving force in evolution, for instance.
>  That was so important to me and yet you don't seem to get that part at all
>- you think Quality is an axes, not a direction.  But it was so plain!  In
>clear and easy to understand words!
>
>We all bring our own conceptual schema to our  interpretation of data.
>
>Ok??
>
>That's the limitation of Pragmatists, they don't realize this.  They're like
>a logger who never saw or heard of anything but a plain cross cut saw coming
>across a chainsaw, fully gassed up, in the woods and trys to cut a tree with
>it.  All his experiential data will tell him is that this thing does cut
>trees, but in a much more awkward manner than his old saw and thus the truth
>is, his pragmatic philosophy KNOWS that his old saw is better.
>
>But you know that old saw, we do get attached.
>
>J
>
>
>
>
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
>--
>------------
>There are differing interpretations of Reality, some are just better than
>others, that's all.
>------------
>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/


"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain and increases inner 
strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama