[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[John Carl]

>
> dmb says:


I think it's a real fight and it matters quite a lot who wins.

John:

Well, then, why do you seem to so often shy away from the real battle?

In my opinion, the following is certainly debatable:

dmb quoting RMP:


> "The gigantic power of socialism and fascism, which have overwhelmed this
> century, is explained by a conflict of levels of evolution. 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. His anti-Semitism was fueled by anti-intellectualism. His
> hatred of communists was fueled by anti-intellectualism. His exaltation of
> the German volk was fueled by it. His fanatic persecution of any kind of
> intellectual freedom was driven by it."
>
>
John:

There is always some sort of intellectual idea driving a social pattern.
 Hitler's, and his followers, intellectual underpinnings were probably as
sophisticated and informed as those he opposed.

So it was really a case of one set of intellectual patterns, figuring out a
way to use social forces to obliterate all other competing intellectual
patterns.  Which is, I agree, an immoral use of intellect.

European criticism of Jamesian Pragmatism is very relevant here.  A uniquely
American pragmatism doesn't translate well across the pond.  The Nazis were
highly pragmatic, in their overt manipulations of social and industrial
power to their own expedient ends.

I think Dave Thomas had something interesting to share along these lines
from that book he found on the clearance table.

By definition, all society is controlled by social patterning.  It's the
system of social patterning itself that is formed by intellect, whether
rationally or artistically, influences and ideas come through leaders who
create governments.  Whether you're the continental congress of the new UsA,
or a Zuni Shaman getting screwed over in tribal politics.  The patterns are
consistent and discrete.

Hitler wasn't anti-intellectual.  He was anti-pluralistic.



> "the MOQ goes on to say that science, the intellectual pattern that has
> been appointed to take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that
> subject-object science has no provision for morals" (277)
>
>
> Despite that flaw....
>
> "a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social
> values is absolutely superior to one that does not." (311)
>
>

A culture that allows an open competition between intellectual patterns, is
infinitely superior to one that does not.  EVEN IF THE DOMINANT INTELLECTUAL
VALUES ARE GOOD.


My point?  Shutting down dissent is anti-Quality.



> My point? I'm not just saying hurray for my team. I'm talking about the
> MOQ's diagnosis and Pirsig is not shy about naming names with respect to
> political ideologies. The idea is to sort these things out, to make sense of
> the conflicts that continue up to this day. And yes, the tea party folks are
> obviously reactionary neo-Victorians and I think they can be very clearly
> seen as such in the light of the MOQ's analysis.


Well I think they can be seen as Neo-Victorian reactionaries in any common
sense analysis too.  The question is, what to do about it.  Railing against
them just keeps the reactionary pendulum swinging.  As we've discussed
before.

Looking at practical solutions, I'd say there's no hope of cutting down this
new tree.  Either it will become diseased and die of its own, or it will
just keep growing.

But perhaps some pruning and shaping is possible.  To do that tho, you have
to accept it as it is, with an eye to how it should be, and take steps in
positive directions.

I'm gonna think about that.