> > dmb says:
I think it's a real fight and it matters quite a lot who wins. John: Well, then, why do you seem to so often shy away from the real battle? In my opinion, the following is certainly debatable: dmb quoting RMP: > "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 > hatred of communists 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." > > John: There is always some sort of intellectual idea driving a social pattern. Hitler's, and his followers, intellectual underpinnings were probably as sophisticated and informed as those he opposed. So it was really a case of one set of intellectual patterns, figuring out a way to use social forces to obliterate all other competing intellectual patterns. Which is, I agree, an immoral use of intellect. European criticism of Jamesian Pragmatism is very relevant here. A uniquely American pragmatism doesn't translate well across the pond. The Nazis were highly pragmatic, in their overt manipulations of social and industrial power to their own expedient ends. I think Dave Thomas had something interesting to share along these lines from that book he found on the clearance table. By definition, all society is controlled by social patterning. It's the system of social patterning itself that is formed by intellect, whether rationally or artistically, influences and ideas come through leaders who create governments. Whether you're the continental congress of the new UsA, or a Zuni Shaman getting screwed over in tribal politics. The patterns are consistent and discrete. Hitler wasn't anti-intellectual. He was anti-pluralistic. > "the MOQ goes on to say that science, the intellectual pattern that has > been appointed to take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that > subject-object science has no provision for morals" (277) > > > Despite that flaw.... > > "a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social > values is absolutely superior to one that does not." (311) > > A culture that allows an open competition between intellectual patterns, is infinitely superior to one that does not. EVEN IF THE DOMINANT INTELLECTUAL VALUES ARE GOOD. My point? Shutting down dissent is anti-Quality. > My point? I'm not just saying hurray for my team. I'm talking about the > MOQ's diagnosis and Pirsig is not shy about naming names with respect to > political ideologies. The idea is to sort these things out, to make sense of > the conflicts that continue up to this day. And yes, the tea party folks are > obviously reactionary neo-Victorians and I think they can be very clearly > seen as such in the light of the MOQ's analysis. Well I think they can be seen as Neo-Victorian reactionaries in any common sense analysis too. The question is, what to do about it. Railing against them just keeps the reactionary pendulum swinging. As we've discussed before. Looking at practical solutions, I'd say there's no hope of cutting down this new tree. Either it will become diseased and die of its own, or it will just keep growing. But perhaps some pruning and shaping is possible. To do that tho, you have to accept it as it is, with an eye to how it should be, and take steps in positive directions. I'm gonna think about that. 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/md/archives.html
