[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[Andy Skelton]

John quoting dmb and then replying:
>> 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.

The Tea Party that I saw originally was about the same social values
Pirsig saw in the Indians (native Americans) in Lila chapter 3:
opposed to Victorianism, opposed to Socialism, opposed to Fascism,
opposed to any overbearing social order, opposed to the remote,
centralized management of private affairs; preferring instead to
resist codifying an overbearing static social structure, to let social
values adapt to experience in real time, to allow people to get along
and live and die and be responsible for their own behavior.

I'm not partisan myself. My political values are mostly antipolitical
so I can't value any political group highly enough to lend my effort.
They are all full of shit by nature, or soon will be made so by the
work of the enemy.

If there were a party like the one I described above, it wouldn't last
a month. Its refusal to hold its values static results in a refusal to
hold its meta-values static; it can't hold onto the idea that ideas
must not be held onto. Any tendency for Dynamic Quality would be too
loosely held to withstand infiltration by other ruinous ideologies.
Ever thus to Parties.

Andy