[MD] The MoQ and Politics?

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi John, inserted ...

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings, Ian.
>
> Addressing your points in proper order...
>
> A philosophy of loyalty ? Oh yes. Loyalty, like respect, was no doubt
>> one of the original virtues. After the virtues we had Virtue (capital
>> V). After Virtue, MacIntyre asked ... Pirsig answered - Quality
>> (capital Q). Yes ?
>>
>> But, seriously.
>>
> Seriously indeed.  I'm pretty serious about these topics.

[IG] Who isn't (that spends hours every day discussing them) ? My
point was that my brief (terminally clipped) summary of such a serious
issue, could hardly be taken too seriously.

>
> For Royce, for instance, loyalty is thee virtue, but we won't go into that
> right now, nor Macintyre whom I've not read but I've read a critique of him
> by Jackie Kegley in her book on Loyalty and Community.  According to her, he
> (Macintyre) falls short by failing to take into account, evil, or more to
> the point, evil communities.  She also points out that his critics feel his
> defense of virtue is weak.  But then, as you point out, he shares a
> similarity with Pirsig.... Hmmm... I thought I said I wasn't going to get
> into this and yet here I am.

[IG] Criticism is easy, we all fall short, that's a given. (ie Tell me
something I don't know.)
Q:  Shall I start criticising you and your one-man Royce show ;-) ? (A: No.)
The move from "the virtues" to Virtue is precisely to avoid debating
which is "the (most important) virtue". As I say Loyalty is a good
word for it, Respect is pretty good too, Quality fits fine too.
Goodness - say, why don't we call it Virtue. Virtue involves these
qualities in dynamic patterns. (I'll say a little about MacIntyre
below. Matt's the expert. I don't see much similarity with Pirsig.)

> Ian:
>> Following the different drum (from the crowd / mob) involves some kinda
>> faith ? [Yes.]

> John: [Right.]
  What occurs immediately to mind is Socrates drinking the poison.
> Some kind of faith must have been involved; it certainly wasn't faith in any
> explicit afterlife or reward from God. When we analyze it, what was there
> besides that "still, small voice" speaking to him personally and whispering
> in his ear?  A voice he'd followed all his life?  The fundamental issue for
> the follower of a different drumbeat, is that different drumbeat itself.
> DQ, we call it, expressing itself in subtle rhythms that appeal personally.
> But there have to be some sort of social reactions of affirmation or the
> person represses this weird drumbeat and gives up on it completely.
>
[IG] Hmm. Especially if the crowd keep exerting their right to
criticise instead of being constructive. Right ?
(Yes already. Choose your metaphor, drumbeat, small-voice, intuitive
sense of quality or virtue ... Yes already. Yes already. Yes already.
Isn't this why we're having this discussion on an MoQ-Discuss thread ?
Tell me something I don't know, and let me know when we are going to
look forward to making progress instead. This apparent frustration is
not aimed at you BTW. It is my very thesis.)

> Ian:
>> Following that faith (as a loner or a minority) involves some kinda
>> rebel independence and effort / courage over and above the choice of
>> following the crowd ?
>> Yes, clearly.
>>
>> Is that drive messianic, requiring / expecting / hoping the crowd will
>> follow ?
>> Hardly. More "Life of Brian" I'd say :-)
>>
>> Caring about the crowd ?
>> Absolutely - (caring, see the virtues above)
>>
>> Fighting "against" the crowd ?
>> Huh. No, no. Ploughing a furrow independent of the crowd, but
>> respecting the freedoms of the crowd naturally (and hoping the crowd
>> will respect the individual's freedom too) Tell me you can tell the
>> difference between doing / arguing one thing, and fighting / arguing
>> against another ?
>>
>>
> John:
>
> Let us call it then, "fighting against crowd-control".
[IG] Against control "by" the crowd. Against social patterns. Yes
already .... see above.

>
> This is where strong communities create strong individuals and by "strong" I
> don't mean extremely forceful; I mean strong in rationality and social
> security (the attitude, not the govt. program).

[IG] And again, yes again. This is why my mantra is often that there
is far more for a group to do than criticise its members and vice
versa. Criticism is all to easy. Support takes .... strength. Courage
of convictions. Loyalty to that intuitive small voice. Virtue.
Quality.

>
> Have you read Macintyre much?  What do you think of his "virtue"?
I've still only read "After Virtue"
This should keep you going. http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1580

>
> 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/md/archives.html
>