DMB, Arlo, Ron, DMB suggested ... "maybe these right-wing attitudes can serve to illustrate what social level values look like in real life"
The meat: I think this is absolutely correct, almost by definition ... right-wing equates to "conservative" and the social level provides a foundation and some static latches to conserve existing socialised intellectual value, and allow new and dynamic intellectual level freedoms. The distraction: Yet, the paradox I find with Platt - the internal inconsistency, which confirms to me it is all just unthinking slogan-speak - is that he subscribes to an MoQ where Level 4 is "above" Level 3 in evolved patterns of quality .... yet he is shamelessly and quite explicitly "anti-intellectual". Ian On 7/23/08, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Arlo said to Ron: > ...make no mistake, they can run and hide and wrap themselves in cloaked > language, but you nailed it when you wondered if that what Platt was really > saying. Yes, Ron, it is. This is why it is NOT about "ranking cultures based > on their intellectual openness or responsiveness to DQ". Hell, as you say > everyone here is okay with that, certainly I am, but it is about placing > _white American culture_ at the top. That's what they want. Not a ranking > that may place America third in some regards, fifth in another, and maybe in > first in some. Oh no, it has to be the unabashed orgasmic proclamation of > Absolute Moral Supremacy of White American Culture. ...when the perennial > nonsense about "evil multiculturalism and the commie academy" came up, > coupled with the embarrassing stupidity of Ham's comment, I simply can't > ignore it. > > dmb says: > I also find it annoying and embarrassing but maybe these right-wing attitudes > can serve to illustrate what social level values look like in real life. The > concern for American culture and the english language, the fear of > foriegners, the distaste for multiculturalism and the hatred of academia all > go hand in hand. These are social level values, values that are concerned > with the preservation of society above all, even to the extent of being > anti-intellectual. > > Did you notice how the principle of freedom, to Platt's mind, is a divinely > granted freedom, God's freedom? When this intellectual principle isn't > converted to theology, it is converted to crude materialism, to free market > capitalism, as if the human spirit yearned for the freedom to shop. And did > you ever notice how its expressed in sound bites, cliches and plattitudes? Of > course you have. Clearly, social level values aren't about making sense. > Making sense only breeds resentment in that crowd. > > God, guns and gays. To put it in a bumper sticker, that's what the > conservatives traditionally vote about. (They're for the first two and > against the last one.) There is a whole constellation of values that go along > with this pithy little list. The Republican Party's policies reflect the > conservative value system pretty well and I think its pretty clear that it is > almost entirely social and in practice the current batch has been profoundly > anti-intellectual, disregarding the highest laws, censoring science, stacking > the justice department with political hacks and disrespecting the truth in > general. But I suppose they sincerely think they're protecting American > society and culture too. > > There is a screenwriting principle that says the bad guy doesn't think he's a > bad guy. From his point of view, he's doing what he has to do or even what's > best and right. And you have to write that part, his actions and words, from > that point of view. From his perspective, the bad guy is the hero of the > story. And this is only natural because we're all heroines in our own > stories. And in the bad guy's view, the hero is evil. And that's how it is > with conservatives and liberals. Each side thinks the other is ruining > everything that makes the country great. And that's what the > social-intellectual conflict is like too. Politics is just the most > conspicuous form of the social-intellectual conflict. Both sides genuinely > feel threatened by the other, each wants their set of values to prevail. If > the MOQ sorts this out in terms of levels, so we don't just have rival > subjective opinions or the kind of relativism that amounts to cultural > solipsism, then one side does have more weigh t > than the other and we can make the call. Naturally, conservatives will never > believe it and will ignore whatever parts they need to, but I think its > pretty darn obvious. Pirsig refers to himself as a liberal intellectual in > Lila and uses FDR's New Deal as an example of the intellectual culture. He > concedes some points to conservatives but adds that he's not one of them. Not > that he would build an evolutionary hierarchy around his own views. He's > talking about historical events most of the time, but its pretty clear how he > understands those events. He's no prude. He's no hippie basher. And he's not > an Ayn Rand fan either. > > But that's okay. Conservatives already have their metaphysics. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. > http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008 > 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/
