Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 21:30:02 BST

Roger responds, still laughing aloud...

Roger said:
Could we try to take it up a notch? Squonk? DMB?

DMB sidesteps:
To anyone who read my post, which included a ton of
quotes, examples and
explanations, your charge that I've engaged in nothing
more that childish
name-calling must seem pretty ridiculous. Except for a
single insult
contained in the post script, your response totally
fails to address the
main point of that post; that conservatism represents
social values in the
conflict between levels. Who needs to bring it up a

Other than tieing him (thinly) to fascism, this is the
extent of your commentary in two posts on Bush:
"GWB's reluctance to
involve us with the UN, or any other international
agreement, only shows the
degree to which he is a tribalists, to which he is
ruled by social level
values. It doesn't mean he's stupid or evil, although
that's true too, it
just means that in the course of our evolutionary
development he's not
helping. He's behind the curve, even in these retro
times. More than any
other feeling, he evokes embarrassment."

let me translate:
"Bush disagrees with my feelings toward the UN,

Yeah, you really made your point. I am thorougly
convinced. Though you forgot "peepee head."
As for the rest of my post addressing your substantive
argument, surely you noticed all those words below your
first paragraph? You had no trouble responding to them.

Roger said:
Now, let me address David's attempt to equate
conservatism with anti-intellect.

DMB backpeddles:
No, I associate conservatism with social values, which
often manifests
itself in anti-intellectual attitudes. And even then, I
didn't EQUATE the

But he actually wrote:
"... conservatives... seem to be so darn stupid... In
the conflict between
social and intellectual values, conservatism sides with
the former. That's
why it seems morally certain and anti-intellectual. "

Er, gosh, MY MISTAKE David. Can't figure out how I
could have SOOO misrepresented you.

DMB says:
Oh, I see. Conservatives are really liberals because
they want to conserve
the liberal progress gained in the past.

Roger responds;
I could have sworn I gave 9 specific liberal-inspired
examples which I am pretty sure conservatives defend.
Perhaps your browser is broken? Are you suggesting that
conservatives DONT stand for (to name the most obvious,
least contentious ones) LIMITED GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY,
other Jeffersonian "rightful liberties")? Or are you
suggesting that these aren't intellectually inspired?
Or that these aren't what was called classical
LIBERALISM in prior centuries?

 Let's get specific and talk
about the contemporary American Republican party, which
certainly CLAIMS to
honor Enlightenment ideals, but here's what is really
going on...

Ever since Reagan was elected, even before, the
Republican party has been
made up of a powerful coalition of religious
conservatives and economic
conservatives. In previous decades the religious folks
were very suspicious
of materialism. To them it was just another godless
feature of modernity.
And likewise, the free marketers and those in the
business class were
hostile to organized religion. Then the architects of
the present
conservative movement pulled off a pretty amazing
trick. They reconciled
these viewpoints. They mixed oil and water.

The trick was to treat the marketplace as a kind of
divine force, one that
motivated people to do the moral thing, that rewards
moral behavior. It was
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" combined with bible-
thumping dogma. It was
brilliant because it not only unite both kinds of
conservatives, but it also
painted any kind of socialism, liberalism or market
regulation as some kind
of ungodly evil, an arrogant bureaucrat who would defy
god's will. God is a
capitalist through and through, and in all probability
a Republican too.
This is moral clarity?

No, it is a silly caricature. Just as dishonest as
saying "Democrats involve an unholy, God hating balance
between unions, attorneys, minorities, government
employees and environmentalists working together in
their socialist march to maximize the income transfer
from those that have wealth to those that will trample
anything to confiscate it. To them, the MOQ is a
redistributivist metaphysics through and through and in
all probability their vision of Pirsig is a a card
carrying Democrat and a member of the ACLU to boot!"

Nice try though.

And its pretty clear to me that Roger has been able to
latch on to this
ideological monstrosity by equating this
theologized "invisible hand" with
Pirsig's DQ. (There's some truth to it, but that's a
whole other

Roger(the monstrosity latcher):
You are certainly entertaining.

DMB says:
Well, over the centuries all words evolve, but your
definition of
CONSERVATIVE seems to "evolve" in the blink of an eye.
In any case, my post
focused on the 20th century by necessity, that's when
the hurricane hit.
This is when social level values become dangerous and
inadequate, when they
begin to try to assert themselves over intellectual
values. That's the
definition of "reactionary".

Roger :
blink blink!
Actually, I think I kind of agreed to much of this.
Please reread.
DMB says:
Its all about these "days of evolutionary
transformation". That's how I
opened the post. If that's not about the static/dynamic
split, I don't know
what is.

If you had left it there we would be in agreement.

I think your response
totally failed to address anything I said and your
political views have
almost nothing to do with the MOQ. I hate to think this
lapse is sincere
because of the implications.

Which of my political views? That the liberal movement
is more dynamic and moral than a static view? That the
conservatives and liberal positions TOGETHER play out
the static and dynamic roles of evolutionary progress?
THE HORROR!!!! Please let me know which of these two
you disagree with (but consider the... IMPLICATIONS!)

No, my views must have nothing to do with the
MOQ, 'cause I don't think those that disagree with my
shallow little views are stupid, evil, tribalistic,
embarassing peepee heads. But then again, I could be

Your posts make my weekend, David. (that sounds kinda
sad doesn't it?)


Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:36 BST