[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[John Carl]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Hi John,
>
> John said:
> So do you have a problem with "pure" as  descriptive term
> for "experience"?
>
> Matt:
> Yeah, more or less.  The whole constellation surrounding
> the term "experience"--pure/impure, immediate/mediate,
> pre-intellectual/post---have given me headaches for some
> time.  Some people see them quite clearly; they remain
> opaque, if not down right suspicious to me.



Well good news for you then.  I've been researching  this privately for a
few days and I'm gonna start posting my ongoing critique which will clear it
all up for all time.

yay me.



Matt:
> Let me put it this way: I don't think it is either impossible or
> undesirable to tell a progressive story about our cultural
> evolution.  Some do.  Some think, like Foucault, that any
> suggestion about what to do politically is simply to repeat
> "the system" again.  I think there has been change, and
> sometimes change for the better.  The better have
> occasionally gotten into power, and hell I hope they repeat
> themselves--until we come up with something better, that is.



Ok.  I'll join you.  I like to look for positivity to perform as well.


>
> That's why Dewey said his purpose was to break the crust of
> convention.  Convention is just the good ideas of the
> past--they _were_ good, but not so much anymore.  On the
> other hand, not all change is necessarily good.
> Baby/bathwater stuff.



Sometimes the crust is like the top layer of a deep snow and when you break
it, you flounder and freeze and die.  Sometimes the crust is like pie, and
there's juicy blackberries to be devoured under the surface.    If I had to
make my best guess, or current political system is more like a snow job.


Sure, I feel strongly, and I will one day (hopefully) become
> one of those scrambling for an adjunct position, but I'm not
> sure I'd even have a shot at tenure-track junk even if they
> were available--my concern is wider than narrowly personal.
> My concern is, sincerely I think, about culture as a whole.
> That's my dog (so I think).
>


What kind of dog is that?  That's a GOOD dog, said the indian. (Lila
-somewhere)



For instance, even after all my blah blah push push of
> opinionation, what did I set down as my first step: not an
> answer to a question, but a step towards formulating a good
> question--separate the topics of high schools from colleges.
> I think there are things to be said on the side of changing
> tenure in high schools, and for myself, the issue is still open.



Well in California High Schools, they don't call it tenure - which is more
of an intellectual controls thing - they call it "union seniority" - which
is purely a socialist technique.  And I'd say it has definitely impacted the
education system for the worse.



> Matt:
> Let me say first: on a strictly Pirsigian note, I think it is a
> misnomer to say that "nothing affects intellectual quality
> itself."  I don't think we can, nor should, think of the
> intellectual level in isolation of _people_ because doing so
> leads to the hypostatization of ideas (which is something
> like Platonism).  Pirsig had levels on top of levels for a reason,
> in this respect.



I run into confusion in this regard often.  I see social aspects of
molecules sometimes and the different patterns of quality at work in
different ways throughout the reality continuum.  But that is probably
sloppy on my part and definitely a matter of semantics upon which I can
compromise in the interest of dialogue.  But just for the record, what the
heck do you mean by "hypostatization"?  I looked it up on my dictionary and
got "relating to the trinity".  Hmm?



> But your larger point, though, is well taken, and why I usually
> talk about money when I talk about politics (in the rare cases
> that I do).  I think it all starts, even if it doesn't end, with
> money.
>

Well money is another one of those things I think gets too much attention.
 It's become the shortcut to evaluation in a value free metaphysics - or
VFM, which is how I describe SOM from now on.



>
> For instance, kids are being raised by TV, right?  Hear it all
> the time.  Where are the parents, to turn that shit off and
> shove a book in their face?  They're at work, by and large,
> because _both_ have to work, and nowadays two or even
> three jobs.



Well I deny the force here.  I don't believe anybody HAS to work as much as
they choose to.  They prefer to work within the system rather than accept
the dynamic freedom which comes from being homeless bums.



> The 50s worked to produce the upheaval of the
> 60s _because_ of the monetary security, which produced
> good kids who felt safe to question authority.  The neocons
> saw that, and said the hell with that (as Reagan said to
> Californians when he abolished free state-school education,
> "I'm not paying for someone to protest my policies")--if
> people are insecure about their jobs, and too busy to think
> let alone do anything about the filth we pump down their
> throats, then we'll be able to stay in power--and keep
> things the same--forever.



My general rant against TV is not "the filth".  In fact, I fear moralistic
programming more than any other.  Religious programming being the most
blasphemous of them all.  It's the transferral of values through a
centralized medium which I believe is destroying the foundations of
democracy.   It is the manipulation of value which keeps the status quo in
power.  Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses.  Disney replies
"Y'all ain't seen nothin' yet."



>  Neoconservativism is a true
> conservativism, though I think it does great injustice tp the
> specifically _democractic_ forms that are wary of change
> (which should embody the Larry Sanders dicta, "Too much
> change is bad for the system"--not against change, per se,
> so much as trying to reign in the speed) because its
> endgame is essentially fascism these days--state-enforced
> corporatism.
>

So, state-enforced corporatism is essentially fascism.  Yeah, I do believe
Orwell and I agree with that completely.

John



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/
>