That is why I wrote "And yes, it is me!" at the end of
my first post under this screen name with this new
email. My style and views are kind of unmistakeable,
no? Heck, David pasted me together flawlessly. Sorry
for any confusion. You can call me anything.
> 1.welcome back DMB
> 2.I have a sneaking suspicion that Paco is the new
> identity of Rog--- if it is I take back my welcome and
> plead for you to get help for your idenity crisis
> okay riskybiz,rog, mistidawg, and now aka paco?
> >Paco, Rasheed, Matt, Rog and all:
> >"...a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social
> >values is absolutely superior to one that does not." chapter 24
> >MATT said:
> >Maybe they can. The very word "conservative" seems to indicate a
> >predilection towards static patters of value, does it not?
> >ROG responded:
> >Yes, I would say that it would indicate a predilection toward static social
> >patterns of quality. Don't see that this means that they are
> >dumb though.
> >On Bush's "axis of evil" PACO said:
> >Clarity isn't the same as immaturity. I respect your
> >views on the issue, but a lot of really bright people
> >found this clarity to be brilliant. Others (equally
> >PACO also said:
> >I suggest he was shooting for moral clarity
> >in a sea of relativist moral confusion.
> >PACO added:
> >Again, a lot of Americans are relieved to find a
> >President with the moral clarity to use America's
> >power, influence and moral vision to influence the
> >world as opposed to follow the misguided dereliction of
> >the UN or of Radical environmentalists...
> >Gents, I think the MOQ explains why conservatives seem to posses moral
> >clarity and, at the same time, why they seem to be so darn stupid. Simply
> >put, conservatism is part of the conflict that dominated the 20th century
> >and continues to this day. One can see this conflict in the history books,
> >in today's newspaper and in these MOQ conversations. In the conflict between
> >social and intellectual values, conservatism sides with the former. That's
> >why it seems morally certain and anti-intellectual. Pirsig devotes a big
> >portion of Lila to this issue and re repeatedly insists on its importance.
> >From chapter 21...
> >"...an earthquake of such enormous consequences that we are still stunned by
> >it, so stunned that we haven't yet fiqured out what has happened to us. The
> >advent of both democratic and communistic socialism and the fascist reaction
> >to them has been the consequence of this earthquake."
> >"The new culture that emerged was the first in history to believe that
> >patterns of society must be subordinate to patterns of the intellect. The
> >one dominating question of this century..."
> >"Victorians repressed the truth whenever it seemed socially unacceptable."
> >Pirsig opens chapter 22 by describing this same shift in values as a
> >hurricane and says, "These were days of evolutionary transformation" as
> >important as the death of Socrates or the day when the first "freak fish"
> >walked on land. In short, this issue is huge. Its one of the most important
> >themes in Lila and in the world's contemporary political conflicts.
> >But conservatism isn't exactly the same thing as Victorianism or reactionary
> >fascism, you say? That's true, but neither is liberalism the same as
> >democratic socialism or communism. The most extreme examples are useful in
> >helping us make more subtle distinctions, in helping us see beyond the
> >obvious. And since Lila is an inquiry into morals, looking at politics in
> >terms of the conflict between social and intellectual values is how we
> >achieve a more genuine moral clarity. The kind of moral clarity offered up
> >by Bush and other conservatives is nothing more than re-assertion of
> >conventional social moral codes. This isn't fascism. Fascism has been
> >marginalized and has only the thinest of ties to the most conservative of
> >conservatives, but still... from chapter 24...
> >"The end of the twentieth century in America seems to be an intellectual,
> >social and economic rust-belt, a whole society that has given up on Dynamic
> >improvement and is slowly trying to slip back to Victorianism."
> >More specifically, I think the phrase "axis of evil" harkens back to that
> >murderous Victorian arrogance Pirsig describes in chapter 21.
> >"Victorians wanted to destroy "inferior" societies because inferior
> >societies were a form of evil. Colonialism...became with Victorians a MORAL
> >course, a "white man's burden" to spread their social patterns and thus
> >virtue throughout the world." This, in turn, reminds me of the most extreme
> >example of social level movement. From chapter 22...
> >"This conflict explains the driving force behind Hitler not as an insame
> >search for power bit as am all-consuming glorification of social authority
> >and hatred of intellectualism."
> >On the same page, Pirsig offers FDR as a contrasting example. While the
> >German fascists were burning books and intellectuals, FDR was implimenting
> >the NEW DEAL, which was "a new deal for the intellectuals of America".
> >Today's conservative aren't likely to go goosestepping down the street or
> >fire up the ovens anytime soon, but they're likely to take a negative view
> >of FDR, intellectuals and the New Deal. "'That Man', as the old aristocrats
> >sometimes called Roosevelt, was turning the the whole United States of
> >America over to foreign radical, 'eggheads', 'commies' and the like. He was
> >a 'traitor to his class'."
> >Pirsig provides tons of examples, events, people, organizations and isms all
> >to help us see which level of values is at work. He also adds the notion of
> >Rights as a kind of moral code. (chapter 24)It serves as a principle that
> >applies to just about any example or hypothetical situation one can imagine.
> >And its no accident that conservatives tend to oppose, often quite
> >stidently, any organization, policy, or ism that puts an emphasis on civil
> >rights, human rights and such. Conservative seem to know on some instinctive
> >level that the universal assertion of rights is a threat to their values,
> >their social values.
> >Moral clarity? The phrase "axis of evil" is simple enough that everyone can
> >understand it, especially since the nations on that axis have been demonized
> >for many years. On a conventional level, in a John Wayne sort of way, on a
> >social level it sits well. As a foreign policy statement, however, it is
> >hopelessly stupid. Its irrational. (That fact that the terrorists see us as
> >the Great Satan is an irony lost on these hawks.) But it hardly matters and
> >the policy makers know that. Talk of war stirs the blood in some ancient and
> >mysterious way. Ratioinality and clarity doesn't have anything to do with
> >it. Neither do morals.
> >PS A speech writer created the "axis of evil" phrase. Bush wanted it to be
> >"the axle of naughtiness", but Rumsfeld talked him out of it.
> >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> >Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> >MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - email@example.com
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:35 BST