On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Right. It was the intellectualism of academicians, identified as such by
> Pirsig. From their ivory towers came the flowering of Subject/Object
> Metaphysics (SOM) which "has no provision for morals." That's the major
> defect. That's the intellectualism that bothers Pirsig. And now, me.
>

Well there is the point of contention then.  What "they" did at this point.
I'm no expert.  I did read an interesting book on the subject by Allen Bloom
called The Closing of the American Mind.  He pointed to German philosophers
and philosophies which directly led to the rise of national socialism in
Germany.  He showed parallels to our culture which predicted the rise of a
similiar system and dictatorship.  You can see the obvious evolution of
moral decadence in society wherein the state has to step in and take control
because the moral fiber of the people is eroded.

And this was in the 80's, fer crissake, Bloom was ranting about kids
listening to Walkman music in his academic setting and  how this culture of
easily -accessed pleasure was underminning any potential for greatness in
our youth.  You take a boy around puberty, and if he's real smart he's going
to be at his peak for logic and math for the next five to ten years.  If you
destract him with a feel good pop culture sensibility his energy is going to
be wasted.  It has long term effects.

And speaking of the state replacing conscience, I've been hearing radio ads
lately focusing shame on a patron of a restaurant who's credit card is
denied, and everybody in the restaurant goes tsk tsk and his girlfriend
assures him there won't be another date and then a voiceover moralizes about
the importantance of paying off one's debts.

What is so scarey to me about this is the total ignorance displayed of the
roots of moral training.  If you see no reason to keep your word and pay
your bills, a radio commercial isn't going to convict you. I guess in your
terms, the statists, already confident through past victory now believe they
can accomplish anything with their propoganda machine.

>
>
> Or how about calling them "statists?" They want to use the physical force
> of
> the state to dominate society. They consider conservatives enemies
> because conservatives object to their schemes to spread "caring and
> compassion" at the point of a gun.


If the Pen is mightier than the Sword, the Videocracy of the Technocrats is
the atom bomb of all thought control and much more powerful than any gun.

I don't know from conservative and liberal... I stay mostly away from
politics and politicians.  I do think that GW Bush was probably about the
worst president we've ever had.  Texas always gives us sucky presidents.


> There is a huge difference between dictators and capitalists. Capitalists
> can't round up dissidents and send them to death camps.


I disagree.  Russia seems to have had absolutely no trouble switching
economic systems from Communism to Capitalism while maintaining the same
sorts of authoritarian social controls.  And couldn't you look at the US's
recent record as to detention and torture and admit that not every singe
person killed by our guns and our planes is a non-innocent?  In some
situations and for a certain time, Capitalism seems to be more efficient as
an economic system than communism.

.  But plainly it is running out of steam and I'd be reluctant to tout it as
the ultimate or ideal goal of society.



>
> > And they suppress good ideas that threaten their system.  The goal then
> is
> > to earn their outright hostility and not just their feigned indifference.
>
> Note a problem. Note the hostility to conservative views on this site.


Well I'm fairly new here, and unsure as to why there should be any hostility
at all in the free interchange of ideas.  But I'm aware it exists.   It's an
old problem, the blind men beating each other with their definition of the
elephant.




> Can you tell us a bit more about your attraction to Josiah Royce's
> philosophy? Are you familiar with the philosopher David Stove?
>

I plan on talking about Royce a great deal. My attraction stems from his
Quality as a philosopher and his obscurity and the many parallels I find in
his Absolute Idealism and the MoQ as I understand it.  I'm studying him now
and making notes and will post them soon - at least what I've found so far.

Never heard of David Stove, thanks for the tip.

Peace,

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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to