[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

John Carl ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 11:32:22 PST 2015


 Dan,

Sorry for the long delay in reply, Oct. is  always such a busy month
and this year it's bled into November.  But the rains have come, at
last.


On 9/27/15, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:31 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan:
>>> So old angry white dudes outnumber everyone else in Texas and Montana?
>>> That's a pretty bold statement. Care to back it up with statistics?
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  No, just it's just my personal experience.    And Trump appeals to a
>> broader demographic than old angry white dudes, or he wouldn't be as
>> popular as he is.  And even if he shrivels up and blows away, the fans he
>> is making will still be here and the ideas that he has coalesced will
>> remain.  Upper level patterns are not dependent upon "material" for
>> propogation and continuence, eh?  Or at least not the same material.
>
> Dan:
> Well, the way I understand the MOQ, intellectual patterns arise from
> the social level

Jc:  That's the theory, at least.  But  How?

The most rudimentary society is mostly concerned with biological
issues, right?  The security of the tribe, to which we are born.  How
do new ideas arise?  And for the most part, like all mutations,
they're maladaptive, right?  The elders know best and it's in the
interest of the group to follow the traditions.

But on the other hand, when good  new ideas do come into the picture,
they create more successful social patterns.  So the creativity flows
from the top down, rather than the bottom up.  The whole "bottoms up"
picture of the big bang "evolving" into planets and plants and
animals, doesn't work in the MoQ framework because it assumes
mechanistic chance as the fundament of the cosmos.


But... there's more.  In fact, it has spun off into a whole 'nother
thread on the relationship between the 3rd and 4th level and I intend
to address that, there.


Dan:


>but they can be seen as opposing social mores.

Jc:

Maybe they "can" be seen thus, but is that really the best?  Isn't it
best when social patterns allow for intellectual patterns to evolve
freely?  When we talk about the American ideal of freedom, isn't that,
at root, what we mean?  When the levels are in opposition, that's a
low-quality situation, if you ask me.


Dan:

> think that's why anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see through
> the media sniping of candidate Trump and will oppose his nomination.

Jc:  Imo, the possessors of modicums are rare.  I don't encounter a
lot of deep thinkers, in my day to day existence.  Maybe I just need
to get out more.

But, the whole issue has gotten even more interesting with the entry
of Dr. Carson to the top of the polls.  He's sorta like a homey, so
I'd have to vote for him.  Even tho' Adventists are all crazy, their
MY crazy, ya know?  It'd be like rooting for a guy because he's from
Grass Valley, the way I do with Royce, or the 49er's because they are
the home team.  Certain loyalties are just handed to us, and sure, we
can always choose to be disloyal, for a higher cause, but I really
think the whole political game is meaningless, except as a spectator
sport.


Dan:

> On the other hand, there is certainly a base that he caters to, the
> less educated and the more virulent who tend to see themselves and
> their ilk as the center of the universe.

Jc:  I think there is a large segment of the population that just
wants to give a big pbllttt to the whole shebang of politics and
government and Trump definitely fits the need of that demographic.


>>
>>> Dan:
>>> I'm not so much arguing that novels are true or not but that we need
>>> some sort of commonality in order to make sense of the world and
>>> dictionaries and encyclopedias help in that regard.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  Well I think it is a good discussion to have.  There are certainly
>> nuances in the term's "factual" and "truth" that need to be fleshed out.
>> I
>> do have my own thinking on those terms that is probably different from
>> what
>> you're used to.
>
> Dan:
> Perhaps. I tend to see the truth as high quality intellectual
> patterns.


Jc:  Exactly!  And a novel can certainly contain within it, and be as
a whole, a high quality intellectual pattern.  That's my point.

Dan:

On the other hand, there are terms which we must abide by in
> order to have intelligent discussions. That novels are fictional is
> one. Can a novel contain truths? Certainly, just as lies contain them
> too. I doubt too many people blatantly lie without at least attempting
> to coerce others into believing them. Yet a novel is just such a
> blatant lie. It says, suspend your disbelief and fall into my trap and
> in return I will spin you a memorable tale.
>

Jc:  So it's all just amusement, eh?  Crime and Punishment is no
different from any other sordid pulp fiction?  I dunno Dan.  Your
insistence upon a certain definitional stance seems based upon common
acceptance, but I can't imagine any deep thinker on the subject
agreeing with you.  But disentangling our conflict might take more
work than it's worth.



> Dan:
> But aren't facts and truth synonymous?

Jc:  Aha!  There's the rub.  They are absolutely  different.  Truth is
a statement about a fact.  Truth is meta-factual.  Ellul puts it
elegantly that they are of two differing realms, Truth and Reality.
Reality is empirical and Truth is abstract and conceptual.  He
contrasts sharply between the image and the word.  Conflating facts
and truth is a huge error of modernity, which any student of the way
image-oriented journalism has changed the American Mind, could tell
you.


>
>>JC:
>> As to what On the Road had to do with Cassady serving time in prison...
>> well, he enjoyed a certain notoriety in the Bay Area scene, while Jack
>> was
>> off in New York and all the cops had to do was read the book
>
> Dan:
> Cops? Read a book? Really? Now that's gotta be a fictional scenario if
> there ever was one. I'd have to say that Cassady serving time in
> prison probably had more to do with his own deeds than anything
> Kerouac wrote.
>


Jc:  Jack pretty much says the same thing in Big Sur.  Neal's
notoriety was due to On the Road.  Which, btw, in an ongoing twist,
was highly inspired by a letter that Cassady wrote to Kerouac, a
letter that has recently been discovered after many years.  It seems
highly unfair, that Neal Cassady's heirs have to fight Kerouac's heirs
for the possession and full rights.  I mean, not only did Neal write
thing, but Kerouac has been hugely popular and his books still sell
well and Cassady, who was the inspiration of Kerouac and so many
others, his heirs never got a dime from his life and work.  That
really pisses me off to see them grabbing for more.  Jack wouldn't
approve, I'm sure.



Whew.  I'm glad I finally got all that off my chest.  Now what was the
point of this thread again?  I need to go back and refresh my memory
of Baggini's article.

John



More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list