Daniel, Roger and y'all:
A political "movement" is a social thing, but the MOQ could certainly
serve as the basis of one's political views. In fact, Pirsig has a lot
to say about political struggles, both world wars, revolutionaries and
even specific political principles. He discussed Lincoln's Presidency
specifically too, but maybe that was in a letter and is not in the book.
I think he explains the 20th century's conflicts in terms of a struggle
between the social and intellecutal values, as the latter tries to
assume its leadership role.
The MOQ's explainatory power has been very, very good to me. I have a
degree in History from a pretty respectable school. I focused my studies
on modern intellectual history and did my senior thesis on Hilter's
ideology, but I never fully understood the madness of ww 2 or Hilter
himself until I read Lila. Now I understand Fascism as the violent
reaction against intellecutal level values, as unmitigated social
values. Now I understand Hitler as a culture hero gone mad. Hitler was
the Giant personified.
I think we can see the same struggle, social vs intellecual values,
working itself out on a less dramatic scale even now. Pat Buchanan is
not another Hitler, but if Fascism ever comes to the US it will look a
lot like him. In a speech he made today he touted isolationism,
protectionism, economic nationalism, closed borders, an end to
affirmative action and a new patriotism. This is essentially fascism
with the heat turned down. Don't be fooled, Fascism in America won't be
German or alien in any way. That's the whole point. It'll be very, very,
very American... with mom and apple pie, God and flags dripping all
over it.
Pirsig admits that he used to be one of those liberal intellectuals who
romanticized criminals and that he couldn't clearly see the difference
between genuine revolutionaries and those who were merely thugs. But
this is neither a indictment of intellectuals or liberals, he was
talking about SOM's blindness to social values. He was talking about the
flaw in our most basic intellectual assumptions. It not about hippies or
FDR, it goes all the way back to the basis of enlightenment period
political philosophy... "Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in
chains." Add this contempt for society with the religious upheavel and
the idea that we are all perfectable "blank slates" and you get the
social level caught in a cross-fire between the 2nd and 4th levels. I
think Pirsig is saying that the intellectual level is SUPPOSED to rule
society, but SOM is flawed and is blind to it. The social level has
reacted in a most murderous way, that's the history of the 20th century.
The MOQ not only explains these horrors., it supplies an intellectual
picture that recognizes and accomodates the social level values. He says
social values should rule over biological values, that's why we have
vice laws and marriage ceremonies, but they should not rule over
intellecual values, that's why we have rights of free speech, etc..
I hope others jump in on this topic. Although an analysis of the MOQ's
political implications should probably be posted under a different
subject heading. "I like hippies" doesn't seem like a very impartial
starting point. How about: MOQ Party?
DMB
PS Roger, I think "flow" resembles, or is a kind of "dhyana" as Pirsig
and Watts both describe it. If such a state of mind were a regular part
of everyday experience, the world would be a different place. One can
hope.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
