Peter you said "I seem to magically turn into Stalin in peoples heads, and the ideological stand-off begins."
My point precisely. My comments are all about changing the rules of that debate - to avoid that recurring useless, destructive, interminable standoff. I call this the "'somebody else's problem' problem". You see that standoff as "the others" problem, not yours / ours jointly. You are putting yourself in a "camp" (with DMB) and projecting that position outwards. I call that "looking for a fight" - couldn't be better designed to create a standoff if you tried. I'm just asking for more careful argumentation - choice of language, respect etc (from all camps) - so we can make progress. Your underlying position I haven't seen anything to disagree with yet. Ian On 7/15/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > DMB - I like you! =) > > See, I'm not looking for some kind of ideological stand-off - I'm just > trying to get a constructive discussion regarding conclusions that I have > drawn from my way of seeing the MOQ. I mean, the conclusions I have made is > quite easy - > > - First I put it to you that the nature of the intellectual level is that of > the "Quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake alone" > > - Then I say that Social Level Values should be subordinated to Intellectual > ones. > > - But if Intellectual Values is the movements towards better understanding, > then I have to draw the conclusion that social structures should be modelled > into serving that as much as possible. > > - Looking at this I notice that "freedom" and concepts like that more and > more looks like social value patterns - they seem to be instruments which > the intellectual level have planted in the social level to help itself. > > - Then It comes to me, quite naturally, that if social structures are to be > remodelled to serve the intellectual level better (and thus evolution) well > then the social value pattern that is the _concept of "freedom"_ may have to > be looked over as well. > > The problem occurs when I propose that the freedom that is free market > enterprises may have to be restricted in order to serve the intellectual > level (as they are clearly social level patterns) I seem to magically turn > into Stalin in peoples heads, and the ideological stand-off begins. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:22:14 -0600 > > From: david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Ian said: > > Exactly Marsha, "isms" for for people stuck in social level patterns > > > > Cause Marsha said: > > Marxism? Capitalism? They're both stinky. And besides there's that old > saying, "garbage in, garbage out". The Intellectual Level needs to look > beyond the past for something that considers the seventh generation. > > > > dmb says: > > I really don't think we should pretend to be above "isms" and I think it > is extremely unhelpful to pretend there is no difference or that they all > belong on the social level. There are quite a few "isms" discussed in LILA > and the political conflicts that make up the last century (or so) of our > history is used to explain the difference between the third and fourth > levels. Yes, it is true. Conversations on this topic too often come down to > some kind of ideological stand-off but I really don't think this makes both > sides equal. Haven't you ever noticed how conservatives have to ignore or > distort what Pirsig says about politics, as in the recent case of Ayn Rand > and her individualism? Take the Scopes trial of 1925, for example, which > pitted evolution against religion in our public schools. This debate > continues to this day and it is certainly a conflict of "isms". Here's a key > section from chapter 22 of LILA... > > > > "But when that trial is seen as a conflict of social and intellectual > values its meaning emerges. Scopes and Darrow were defending academic > freedom but, more importantly, they were prosecuting the old static > religious patterns of the past. They gave intellectuals a warm feeling of > arriving somewhere they had been waiting to arrive for a long time. Church > bigots, pillars of society who for centuries had viciously attacked and > defamed intellectuals who disagreed with them, were now getting some of it > back. > > The hurricane of social forces released by the overthrow of society by > intellect was most strongly felt in Europe, particularly Germany, where the > effects of World War 1 were the most devastating. Communism and socialism, > programs for intellectual control of society, were confronted by the > reactionary forces of fascism, a program for the social control of > intellect. Nowhere were the intellectuals more intense in their > determination to overthrow the old order. Nowhere did the old order become > more intent on finding ways to destroy the excesses of the new > intellectualism. > > Phaedrus thought that no other historical or political analysis explains > the enormity of these forces as clearly as does the MOQ. 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 > exaltation of the German volk was fueled by it. His fanatic persecution of > any kind of intellectual freedom was driven by it. > > In the United Sates the economic and social upheaval was not so great as > in Europe, but Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, nevertheless, become the > center of a lesser storm between social and intellectual forces. The New > Deal was many things, but at the center of it all was the belief that > intellectual planning by the government was necessary for society to regain > its health." > > > > dmb continues: > > Pirsig makes reference to a whole lot of other example in this chapter (as > well as chapter 24 and scattered throughout the book). For Chris and our > other European friends, the New Deal is classic American liberalism and the > conservative movement - along with the boys from the Chicago school of > ecomonics - has been taking it apart bit by bit for decades. They've been > propping up third-world dictators like Pinochet and its only getting worse > by the day. (Again, you gotta get "Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein) The > YouTube video about the atheist soldier who is suing the army for being a > christian organization would only be the most recent example of how the > social-intellectual conflict shows up in the news on a daily basis. I don't > know if the situation at the US Air Force Academy makes national or > international news but around here it counts as local news and we've been > hearing about it for years. (The academy is in Colorado Springs, where many > leading fundamentalist leaders > > are headquartered.) Apparently, the students are pressured to "get > saved", to convert to fundamentalism and those who resist are made to suffer > for it. Add that to a thousand other assaults on intellectual values. Oh, > and did you hear? They gutted the fourth amendment the other day. Russ > Feingold and a few other brave souls are the other ones who objected. I > mean, really, this is no time to pretend that "isms" don't matter. Wake up > and smell the fascism. Please. Before its too late. > > > > Seriously, > > dmb > > > > > 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/ > 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/
