From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 17:01:32 GMT
All,
This got a bit lengthy, my apologies... :-)
I'd like to add some comments to this discussion, so this is not intended
to be a full response. I do have to say, I initially did not get respond
because I took the question to be disingenous. That is, the question "until
the MOQ is better understood, what is the best source of morality for a
nation?" was just an attempt at a rhetorical "trap" that would allow Platt
to propose (as his question intimates), following christian morality is the
next best thing to a MOQ-based morality, until the MOQ is understood.
(Perhaps I am wrong)
Indeed, the question itself is somewhat misleading as it implies that
nations can exhibit monolithic "morality" based simply on a forced
"nationalistic" moral code. As we've seen, the theocracies of Europe in the
Middle Ages and around the globe today exhibit no more "morality" than the
autocracies so often used by some as examples of "evil secularism".
Also, Platt's premise, I'm sure, stems from Pirsig's statement that the
Intellectually governed societies (which are morally superior to socially
guided ones) closed the door on DQ and thus stifled themselves.The question
then becomes, does Pirsig (or anyone) advocate we then close the door on
ALL Intellectual governance and allow only social-level guidance of
society, "until such a time as MOQ is understood by all individuals?"
As with all these arguments, there is always only two ways out in the
dialogue (recall the left or right horns of the bull) one is to propose a
fully Intellectually-governed society and deal with continual references to
Stalin and Pol Pot (as if these were Intellectually governed societies), or
propose full support for a socially-governed society and deal with what
static social patterns should be allowed dominance. This dichotomy is an
illusion that should be rejected upfront.
Based on Pirsig, I see no evidence that the Intellect should be completely
disjoined from its morally superiour role in governing society. What I see
is the lesson that Intellectual governance, JUST LIKE its morally inferior
counterpart social-guidance, can inadvertanly (or deliberately) neglect DQ.
The society of the Brujo, for example, had strict static-social patterns
that stifled DQ (the fact that of the entire population of the tribe, only
the one lone individual was able to "break free" and bring about
DQ-inspired change bears this out).
There are several problems, as well, that need to be addressed with this
line of dichotomous thinking.
First and foremost is the implied notion that America was never governed by
people "reasoning Intellectually" (until 2000, at least, this is false).
The "free market" (in ideal, and not "American" in origin) was a product of
enlightenment thinking, not of static religious patterns, or theology, or
other social patterns. "Representative government" is a product of
Intellectual guidance. The planned separation of church and state is a
result of "Intellectual guidance". America is not different from the "dull,
grey" cities of the Intellectual planners by contrast, it is different only
in degree (and, this degree varies depending on the "arena", greater in
some areas, less in others).
The second implied notion is that America, in contrast to the "dull grey"
cities, does nothing to stifle DQ. This places the entire realm of DQ in
the realm of the business markets. And it ignores that the marketplace is
only one realm where DQ can be stifled. Thus, simply by virtue of their
economic markets, "nations" can be categorically placed as "DQ" and
non-"DQ". Here I believe is one of the dialogic holds capitalism has on the
current discourse, it places the economic "market" as the supreme arbiter
of Quality.
Third is the conflation of all the worlds cities into either "dull and
grey" or "American". Certainly the cities of the socialist block countries
(although I could certainly argue, and would do so, that these were simply
autocracies masquerading as socialism) were very much dull and drab. But
London, Rio de Janero, Kobenhavn, Berlin, Venice, Tokyo, Montreal, (not to
mention Katmandu, Athens, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Cairo and many others)
these could hardly be considered "dull". Indeed, "despite" social
orientations in their governances (or a lack of comparable technological
infrastructure), these cities exhibit just as much, if not more, vibrancy
in the arts, theatre, music and comparable vibrancy in the marketplace.
(And this is an interesting tangent. We may outperform the world in the
production of consumerables (I'll concede this just to stand the issue),
but it has been under monarchies in Europe and Asia (for example) and the
"social democracies" of Europe, and the "theocracies" (Occidental, Oriental
and otherwise) of the Middle East that the best art, the best theatre, the
best literature and poetry, the best architecture in the modern period
could arguably be said to have been created. Our greatest philosophies were
laid out in "non-capitalistic, non-free market" areas, mathematics
originated in strong form in Arabia, and so on. We may have cell phones
that ring and blink blue and can play video games, but our arts and
literature are pretty much tired and poor (no judgements on your art,
Platt). I'll move further comments on this over to the Chomsky thread...)
Again, the third problem with the above line of reasoning is the
"America"-vibrant, everywhere else "dull and grey" dichotomy. While Pirsig
may indeed have been lauding the vibrancy of New York City (a place I will
not deny is one of the most vibrant cities in the world, if not at any rate
America' most vibrant city (and they all voted Kerry, I may add)), but the
stifling effects of static-social patterns blanketing America from DQ has
created quite a lot of "dull and grey" (Topeka, Cleveland, Dallas,
Buffalo...) not to mention quite a large map of "dull and grey" smaller
cities, towns and areas. We may love hinterland America for its kitsch and
it simplicity, but a place swelling with DQ it is most certainly
NOT. Static social patterns, mostly conservative-religious, are seriously
stifling DQ across the nation. To think that only "Intellectual pattern"
guidances (as related to a "free market") can do this, is wrong.
It should also be noted, of course, that Pirsig did not favor completely
abandoning restrictions on DQ (social or Intellectual), lest one have
completely chaos. Thus we are left with the understanding that some
"restrictions" on DQ are necessary to prevent chaos and allow static
latching. We are also left with the understanding that the survivial of a
"society" is morally inferior to the surival of Intellectual patterns.
Thus, if an Intellectual pattern destroys a society, so be it. It should.
The fourth and final problem I have with the question, "until the MOQ...
best source of morality for a nation?", is that it conflates all moral
issues into one that can be addressed soley with static social patterns.
Thus, issues of biological morality, social morality and intellectual
morality are seemingly dealt with by adherence to one proposed "source" of
morality, in this case static social patterns. Perhaps this is why Platt
asked "until the MOQ", but even in a non-MOQ understanding it is not hard
to reason that moral issues exist on multiple layers ("criminalizing
murder" is a higher moral concern than the morality of conducting business
on a Sunday in any non-MOQ reasoning, I would surmise). But this question
again implies that ALL moral issues are best suited not only as monolithic
(everyone in the nation acts the same way), but that the state should
decide all "moral" matters.
From all this I gather that the rules that govern society walk a
precarious line between "excessive restriction" and "chaos". Those that
govern society should recognize this and rely on Intellectual-level
guidance to continually evolve these "rules", as the activity of a people
is always in flux. Those that are governed should remain vigilant against
"excessive restriction" (whether of social or Intellectual origin) and
chaos. Very importantly, this applies not merely to the "marketplace" of
commerce, but to all aspects of life where one can be expected to
experience DQ.
However, it should also be understood that these "rules" are also enabling,
and not simply restrictive (this is the fundamental motive for the creation
of the social level!!). For example, in a society that restricts "murder" I
am freer in my life as I do not need to maintain constant effort to
preserve my life (some, of course). A tax code can certainly become
excessively restrictive, but one should also bear witness to the enabling
effects it has (public roads and libraries, emergency medical care, police
and military protection, improved access to higher education and general
education, child protective services, support of scientific research, and
so on).
To this end, I favor MSH's proposal of (and arguments for) an
Intellectually guided humanistic response to governing. As I've said, it is
morally superior for Intellect to govern society. With vigilance against
stifling DQ excessively, NOT ONLY in the marketplace but in the totality of
activity within the nation. Some restrictions will always be necessary, of
course, and are GOOD. What is odd, is that the basis for representative
government and the separation of church and state, as well as the
safeguarding of human rights, are the foundation for Intellectually guided
secular humanism.
To say more would only be redundant to previous exchanges and other's posts
on this thread, so I'll leave it go with that.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 09 2004 - 17:06:33 GMT