Fascinating A happy hour has been spent coursing about the internet reading all sorts of references to this Strauss chap, rest assured that I've reached my own conclusions. Can't see what all this hoped to achieve? Platt you assert that Arlo is presenting a biased view, but who cares? I'm hardly going to just lap it us as gospel from some fellow I barely know off the internet. Anyhow for what its worth, it strikes me that deliberate social engineering of this type is a strongly left-wing thing to do, irespective of what your approach is trying to achieve, the real divide is between two behaviours: 1) "attempts to regulate in favour of defined desirable outcome" and 2) "attempts to de-regulate in favour of freedom"
Anyone who sets a clear plan for how they will engineer a society towards a defined end product is a basically a Marxist. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arlo Bensinger > Sent: 03 July 2007 17:17 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Quality decline > > > Allow me to correct a few of your distortions. > > [Platt] > The BBC passage and the Wikipedia entry are completely at odds both > in meaning and tone. > > [Arlo] > Regardless, there is nothing in the Wikipedia entry that contradicts > the short BBS passage. Strauss believed the "individual liberty" > invariably led to nihilism, and suggested that humans need myths > (true or not) to live by. The two prominent ones adopted by the > neoconservatives were "religion" (read "Christianity" stripped of its > meaning but retaining its power of control) and "the nation" (read > "the Glorious and Divine Manifest Destiny of the Moral States > of America"). > > But as long as we are disputing "tone" in the guise of "bias", let's > be fair and say that Wikipedia has garned its share of criticism. How > do we know, for example, that the Wikipedia entry is not erroneously > biased "to the right"? Maybe the "tone" of the Wikipedia article > represents bias on the part of the neocon who wrote it? > > Instead of playing the bias game, I encourage people to check out > both the Wikipedia and the BBC report on Strauss. Since they are not > contradictory, except perhaps in tone of reverence, what's the harm? > > [Platt] > What then is your program for "How we should live?" I'm sure > you have one. > > [Arlo] > Ah, yes "Arlo is Pol Pot". I've been wondering when that little trick > would be rolled out. No matter how many times I comment on this, it > keeps getting funnier to see you roll it out as if it is some "fresh" > obversation. When all else fails, "Arlo is a commie who wants to > abolish freedom" seems to be ready to drop. > > Yet, despite the absurdity, I'll bite. Arlo has only one idea for > "how anyone should live". And that is "Good". I encourage a > Campbellian approach to myth because I see things pointed to by these > metaphors that are beyond the reach of "literal tongues". But I > ignore the exoteric dogma, the "power and control" of the myth > leveraged by the neocon agenda. Instead, I point towards the esoteric > foundations. As in my recent exchange with Ron about the Genesis > story. The end to this is that I care not one whit by which "names" > or "metaphor" one uses to point, so long as the pointer is a "good" > one, and that is determined by the individual as to how it relates > value and meaning to their lives. > > [Platt] > No. Moral but misguided. "Just as the intellectual revolution > undermined social patterns, the Hippies undermined both static and > intellectual patterns." (Lila, 24). > > [Arlo] > Ah, but it was precisely this movement away from social and > intellectual patterns that MADE it the moral movement. From LILA, the > hippies were "a moral revolution against both society and > intellectuality. It was a whole new social phenomenon no intellectual > had predicted and no intellectuals were able to explain." The > misguidedness came when after morally rejecting both static social > and intellectual patterns, they mistook biological for > Dynamic Quality. > > This is clearly articulated by Pirsig. "The Hippie rejection of > social and intellectual patterns left just two directions to go: > toward biological quality and toward Dynamic Quality. The > revolutionaries of the sixties thought that since both are > anti-social, and since both are anti-intellectual, why then they must > both be the same. That was the mistake." > > There is no mistake here. The morality of the hippie movement was > precisely because, and this is according to Pirsig himself, it moved > away from social AND intellectual patterns. The only mistake was the > confusion between biologic and Dynamic directions. > > But we have been down this road too. All you offer in rebuttal is > about how static social and intellectual patterns are necessary. And > perhaps they are. But that does not dispute the fact that the > morality offered by Pirsig to the hippies is specifically because of > its rejection of these. Instead, Pirsig points out "Just as the > intellectual revolution undermined social patterns, the Hippies > undermined both static and intellectual patterns. Nothing better has > been introduced to replace them." This was the subsequent problem. > NOT that static social and intellectual patterns were undermined (the > hippies were morally sound in doing so), but that they were unable to > offer anything "better"... because of their BIO/DQ mistakedness. > > [Platt] > As usual, an unsupported claim, proving my point. > > [Arlo] > I have called your distortions in context every time. All anyone has > to do is peruse the archives to see that. > > Now a biggie. The "liberalism" thing. > > Jos had commented on how the word had changed its meaning. > > I had retorted saying "This usurption of words leads us to forget > that it was liberalism that gave us the liberty we enjoy today." > > Platt's claimed I should reread this, that I had "quoted at length > about how liberalism was the party of individualism and freedom." > > Okay, I am rereading it. I asked you to tell me where I said anything > about "a party"? > > [Platt] > You pick up on one word to distort the meaning of the whole. Again, > you prove my point. > > [Arlo] > So tell me then how you interpret my original small sentence to be > somehow "how liberalism was the party of individualism and freedom"? > > You can't. And you know I said no such thing. Anyone who can read can > see my single sentance has nothing whatsoever to with a "party of > individualism and freedom". > > And this comes on the heel of your initial claim, that my one > sentence "has omitted how the meaning of the word liberal has > changed in modern America". > > And again, you know this is entirely untrue, since my comment was IN > REPLY TO how the word has changed its meaning. Indeed, in my sentence > I specifically say "this USURPTION OF WORDS". > > So we have, in summary, a comment I made about the change of the use > the word, and a passage showing "liberalisms" original meaning. You > retorted that I had ignored that the word had changed. A claim > laughable in its distortiveness. But I can forgive you for misreading > and skipping my actual words. So I point this out. Then you reply > that my sentence was about how "liberalism was the party" of some > such thing. I asked you to show me where in what I said you > get that from. > > And all you can do is reply with a Pee-Wee. When the distorter gets > corned he calls the other a "distorter". Sad. But redeem yourself. > Take my original post and show me where I say anything of the sort > of thing you distortively claim. You can't, of course. So I am sure > all I'll get is some other distortion to try to cover the last. Or > another Pee-Wee. > > [Platt] > I know you don't care about insulting others you disagree with. > > [Arlo] > No, I don't care about calling your vile and evil rhetoric, when you > engage with it, for what it is. Its an embarrassment and > should be exposed. > > [Platt] > As for using the same terms to describe another, since when do you > reserve certain words for your exclusive use? I call that arrogance > of the first order. > > [Arlo] > I care not one bit about what words you use. What I've pointed out is > the rhetorical tactic of responding by deflection, the Pee-Wee. > > Now I am off for a short ride through the mountains to the north, and > then a ballgame. Toss out all the distortions and Pee-Wees you want. > Make Limbaugh proud. > > 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/ > > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the > Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by > Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM > Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please > call your organisations IT Helpdesk. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, > monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. > > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the > attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are > not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and > inform the sender by return e-mail. > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the > attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are > not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and > inform the sender by return e-mail. > > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may > be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of > Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, > and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a > responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing > or forwarding e-mails and their contents. > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. 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/
