On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I can see you are itching to discuss politics, John. So is WillBlake, who > joined the MD a few months before you came on board. > >> [John] Itching to discuss politics? Well I wouldn't have characterized myself that way. I do see myself itching to discuss values in the political realm. [Ham] Both of you write well, have an open mind toward the MoQ, and seem to favor laissez-faire Capitalism (a rare combination of virtues in this forum.) What are the chances of getting you and WillBlake together in a discussion of Conservative Values? Since Platt and I are regarded as right-wing "extremists", the four of us could take on the leftist-liberal majority in a productive debate. Until that happens I have little incentive to jeopardize my already tenuous philosophical position here by arguing politics with the antagonists. [John] You? Tenuous? How long have you been part of this forum, Ham? As to taking on any "leftist-liberal majority", that is definitely outside my ability or desire. One of my biggest pet peeves is partisanship which locks two different sides into defensive/offensive orientation. It's not about betterness anymore, its about winning. And I reject aissez-faire Capitalism as refuted by the tragedy of the commons. The only person I've found so far that I could be interested in joining in a cabal is Marsha. She's fed up with the back-and-forth-going-nowhere and wants something NEW. Me too. I would like to see a Politics of Quality. How about a new party called "People of Quality". PoQ, either way. We wouldn't care about left or right, we'd care about best. That I'd join. [Ham] > Nothing is wrong with betterness, except that it represents something > different for each of us. Pirsig talks about betterness as if it's a universal property that > everybody agrees on. But when applied to morality, which is the author's > usual reference, this just isn't true. For example, to the liberal > socialist "betterness" means having a bigger, more caring government. For > the conservative it means having more freedom with less government > intervention. To the Jihadist it means destroying the infidels and > establishing an Islamic world order. [John] Well in a quality politics, all these issues are addressed in an open way and consensus is reached. With happiness for all. Start humming kum -by -yah now. [Ham] There's no "inside" or "outside" to betterness because it's a Value. Values are proprietary to the individual and are reflected in the social morality of like-minded people. This is the trap Pirsig fell into by using a banket term like "better" to connote universal goodness. One man's "goodness" may be his neighbor's "evil". A Bruckner symphony may be sheer beauty for a lover of the classics but tediously boring to a jazz musician. Just as all individuals are different, so is their sense of value. That's the relational nature of the world we live in. [John] Aha. THAT is why you call your philosophy tenuous. If values are the property of individuals then they are transitory, unreal and fade away when the individual dies. The only way they can persist is by individuals converting as many as possible to be like-minded. Which explains the urge to form cabals and browbeat one another into submission. [Ham] As I explained in a post to Marsha yesterday, "Difference is necessary for the realization of value -- not only difference in terms of what is perceived, but difference in the 'agency' of perception." No two worldviews are valuistically identical. We come into existence as differentiated beings so that we may realize value in an infinite range of perspectives. [John] Difference is one component of realization of value - but so is similarity. Comparison, contrast, etc. The list probably IS infinite, but that just makes the point of the necessity of Value as an overarching concept to keep chaos at bay. [Ham] Regrettably, this point is missed in the MoQ because, although the author makes a formidable case for Value in our lives, he has defined it as a universal principle instead of as subjective sensibility. [John] You don't find the arguments against SOM compelling? Oh my. You must be a heretic then. nevertheless, People of Quality appreciate diversity of opinion. Even if it's wrong. ;) 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/
