Marsha: Just like the subject and object are mutually created, so are the individual and collective. It's an old-world struggle for old-world men. Blah, blah, blah... Platt creates an Arlo, Arlo creates a Platt, and both fight dirty. Blah, blah, balh... Both the Conservatives and Liberals in Gov't have lost their virtue. Blah, blah, blah... Instead of polarity how about seeing interconnectedness; how about discovering something new. That's N-E-W.
[Krimel] Do tell? By all means, lead the way, your excellence... ______________________________________________________________________ >Marsha to Ron: >I was wondering if you think, like I do, that Arlo, Platt and Krimel >are enmeshed in a subject/object discussion that can only conclude in >conflict? Blah, blah, blah... Where is their interconnectedness >acknowledged? Where is their relatedness accepted? Does anybody see >issues as ever-changing patterns? And talk about egos? > >[Krimel] >It sounds to me like you don't know what the debate is really about then. In >terms of political debate it shows the contrast between the two streams of >world politics that dominated the past century. It is about the tension >between the individual and society. It is the struggle between order and >chaos. > >Its structure is polar. Platt has staked out a position on the extreme >right. It is Randian. In my view it is a position so extremely >individualistic that the libertarians are wary of it. It is Reaganism. > >I don't think either Arlo or I really advocate communism or any form of >absolute accumulation of power. But both us wind up voicing extreme >positions on occasion to highlight the contrast between the poles. > >But just the way the argument is structured is relevant. Polar opposites >colliding. Bouncing into nooks and crannies of current events and historical >minutia. The dynamic tension of between the individual and the collective >stretched out in time, shattering into fractals of infinite detail. It is me >against y'all. Us against them. Or it can be: me and you, a team, a >marriage, a family, a nation. Cooperation versus conflict. > >It is an essential distinction between western individualist thinking and >eastern collective understanding. It affects everything from how we allocate >private and public property to how we raise our children. > >I am sorry if the quality of the argument is not up to your standards. But I >hope it illustrates to any discerning reader that Platt's position was >justifiably and soundly rejected in the last election. When the pendulum >swings just a bit more, Platt and his neocon ilk will be back to the fringe >where they belong. > >In the mean time you could try to actually be the voice of reason or hold >your breath, close your eyes and walk on. > 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/
