-----Original Message-----
From: Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: MD Values within values
Hi Drose, Horse, David and Group.
Before plunging into a response to Horse's post of 12 Feb., I need to
remind myself of Pirsig's warning:
�To put philosophy in the service of any social organization or dogma is
immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one.�(Lila,
Chap. 29)
Pirsig also said a few paragraphs on:
�Ideologues usually talk in terms of sweeping generalities. . . . He didn't
like Hegel or any of the German idealists who dominated philosophy in
his youth precisely because they were so general and sweeping in their
approach.�
Heeding Pirsig's not to use the MoQ to defend or deplore any "ism," I'll
refrain from making the case that capitalism is inherently more moral
than socialism other than to repeat Drose's statement, �Anytime the
government coerces the individual for any reason, freedom is abridged,"
and Pirsig's statement that the "only perceived good" of Dynamic Quality
is �freedom."
But from Pirsig's suspicion of generalities I take courage in asking Horse
to explain the following sweeping generalities from his Feb. 12 post:
�socialist principles,� �collective responsibility,� �social conscience,�
�social responsibility� and �virtues of the collective.�
These great flowery phrases have the look of goody-goodism all over
them in order to hide the ugly fact that at their root lies the barrel of a
government gun. I may be wrong, but I suspect such generalities mean
redistribution of wealth in the name of "equality" and "fairness," and that
among socialist principles one would find �from each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs.�
I haven't read any of Norm Chomsky's books but have seen him lecture
enough on C-Span to conclude that he's a Marxist who, like many
celebrated academics, has become a professor emeritus of gibberish,
employing language and jargon to obfuscate rather than enlighten. Case
in point--the phrase �libertarian socialist,� an oxymoron if there ever was
one, on a par with �the mountains of Holland.� (As an aside, �mutually
exclusive� seems to be as foreign to Horse's allowable thought processes
as �absolutes.�)
Consider �fascist socialism.� Now there's a dualism that carries real
meaning given the history of the 20th century with its concentration
camps, gulags and a couple of hundred million dead. Separating those
two words is the real challenge for those who seek the Good, among
whom I have not the slightest doubt are all the contributors to this site.
Platt
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Hello group,
I made a post a while back that said all of the "intellectualizing" about qualtiy
always falls short of the mark.
Well I haven't changed my mind any, and it seems that there is more of it than ever.
It appears to me that all of the strong static values are dragging people down. In
other words talking about ism's and schism's and what not. I don't feel there is
anything to be solved by contemplating different factions of government, or static
values-if you want to attain "dynamic right dharma"- as Pirsig calls it. We can't
escape them, but we don't have to let them drag us down.
To paraphase Pirsig on the matter,"The trouble is to achieve "dynamic right dharma"
you have to let go of the static values. And these static values are so strong that
we have a set of static intellectual truths in gov,and religion. We also have a set of
static social organizations contained in gov. and religion which contain a set of
static biological people, who own a lot of static inorganic property."
To me it is all KATZ!
Thanks,
Jason Nelson
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
