From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 18:41:07 BST
omigod
On 4/21/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> Arlo,
>
> > Platt (previously)
> > > Note that a couple of "murderous reactionaries" are omitted, like Mao,
> > > Pol
> > >Pot, and Saddam Hussein. Also note that Pat Robertson, who is hardly
> > > responsible for the murders of millions, is lumped in as morally
> > > equivalent to the mass killers. Another questionable assertion was that
> > > all those characters were anti-intellectual. But, several of the worst in
> > > terms of spilling human blood were intellectually-driven Marxists.
>
> Arlo:
> > Actually, the problem in all cases (from religious nationalism to the
> > dictators you mention) is likely not even truly "intellectual", but rather
> > evidence of the pervasive need for (static) power structures to reify
> > themselves.
>
> Please explain what you mean by "reify themselves." Do you mean those in
> power value consolidating and staying in power?
>
> > Now that the Christian "church" is fairly establish and
> > unthreatened you don't see the brutal displays of power that were evidenced
> > during most of the past two centuries. But this is not because the "church
> > has matured", it is because it is unthreatened and that much of its power
> > has been transferred to secular government, which then becomes the prime
> > mover towards power reification.
>
> The "context" of my statement above is the 20th century. But even in the
> darkness of its the Middle Ages, the brutality of the Christian church in
> terms of numbers murdered doesn't come close to the genocides perpetrated
> by secular-dominated governments in modern times. When it comes to mass
> slaughter, Marxist communism takes the prize.
>
> > Add to this power structure the (seemingly) xenophobic tendencies of
> > humans, and one can see the simple formula that underlies the historical
> > murder of millions, whether "in the name of" Pol Pot or Hitler or Jesus or
> > Mohammed.
>
> I wouldn't lump Jesus and Mohammed with Pol Pot or Hitler in terms of
> numbers slaughtered "in the name of." But, xenophobia being a natural
> state of man I agree with, stemming from ancient evolutionary struggles.
>
> > In short, it is not about whether "religion" or "intellectualism" has
> > caused more brutality. Both are, for the most part, innocent bystanders in
> > a historical quest for power; power in the papacy, power in the Kremlin,
> > power in the Monarchy, etc., and an arguable xenophobic tendency inherent
> > in people; fear of blacks, fear of turks, fear of liberals, fear of
> > conservatives, fear of muslims, fear of christians... fear of "the other".
>
> We'll just have to disagree on whether morally-mature religion and morally-
> bereft intellectualism were "innocent bystanders" in the wars of the 20th
> century.
>
> > I do think it is not right to lump Pat Robertson in with Hitler. That's an
> > emotive move that really has no justification. But its also wrong to equate
> > Marx with the mass murders of Stalin-- just like itd be wrong to blame the
> > death of the million killed in the Crusades on Jesus. In both cases, it was
> > power structures manipulating xenophobia to consolidate their power.
>
> Marx is the father of the communist (intellectual) political system which
> has proved itself to be totalitarian wherever it's been tried -- Russia,
> China, Cuba, etc. By contrast, the democratic political system,
> originating in ancient Greece, was born again by Judeo-Christian advocacy.
> I think there's a message in this comparative history.
>
> > But what people like Roberston DO, is to end religion at suporting static
> > social power. Thus, religion becomes no more than support of the
> > instituional church, and true religious, dynamic experience is denied to
> > millions so that the consolidation of his power empire is maintained.
>
> I certainly agree that static religious practices, unlike a market
> economy, are hardly conducive to providing fertile ground for Dynamic
> Quality to flourish.
>
> Platt (previously)
> > > Finally, what's actually at "the heart of it all" was the defeat of these
> > > secular monsters by the Judeo-Christian West, although remnants of
> > > Communism still survive in the East.
>
> > "Secular monsters"? You're using the same emotive pairing technique here,
> > Platt. Lest one consider historical figures such as Clement V to be
> > "religious monsters". It was not a defeat of "secularism" by
> > "Judeo-Christianity". Our power structure (fueled nearly exclusively by
> > wealth) simply bankrupted theirs.
>
> Don't we have to ask the question why they went bankrupt?
>
> > "Communism" still survives because many people reject the ideolization of
> > capital and wealth, and consider the "benefits" to not outweigh the costs
> > (like the Amish, as another example). And, because these dialogues always
> > get reduced to "sides", one becomes an oppositionist simply by disagreeing
> > with normative capitalist power structures. That is, one becomes a
> > "communist" by rejecting the pursuit of wealth... something feared by
> > capitalists in this country, and so great effort is made to villify any
> > critical discourse.
>
> Not sure what you'e driving at here. Is the religious-based Amish
> lifestyle your idea of what we should be striving to attain on a wider
> basis? Are there parts of the Communist Manifesto that you think the U.S.
> ought to adopt by law? Do you disagree with Pirsig that capitalism is
> better than socialism because a market economy is by nature more Dynamic?
>
> > This is not to say that "they are right and we are wrong", any more than it
> > is to say "we are right and they are wrong". Only to point out that many do
> > not accept that money is God (as it is in this country).
>
> Money is the means to express values. You and I may not agree with some of
> the values money expresses, like the earnings of rock stars, but neither
> you nor I would want to coerce others into spending their wages on only
> that which we approve of. (Am I assuming your view of coercion
> correctly?)
>
> > > Praising the intellectual level as superior to the social level is all
> > > well and good so long as one keeps in mind that many intellectuals are
> > > Christians, and that SOM intellectualism "has no provision for morals," a
> > > major theme of the MOQ and the prime cause, according to Pirsig, of social
> > >degeneration in America.
>
> > Not a problem, you're right. But let's also keep in mind that most of these
> > "intellectuals" tend to reject religious nationalism (that is they see
> > "God" as experienced as Jesus, Mohammed, White Buffalo Calf Woman, and in a
> > myriad of culturally "revealed" ways). The "intellectual" that still clings
> > to static nationalism (God only revealed Himself to a select tribe in the
> > Middle East, or my Prophet is the Only True Prophet) maybe "intellectual"
> > in other academic areas, but they are trapped in social static power
> > structures with regard to religious experience.
>
> Having trouble following your line of thought in the above.
>
> > > Those like DMB who exhibit a frightening intolerance of religious belief
> > > bordering on outright bigotry might be more credible if they acknowledged
> > > the
> > > good that Christianity has contributed to the evoluntionary story.
>
> > Well, I suppose if you are on the side of Christianity, that would make
> > sense. If you are part of any religion Christianity has collided with (in
> > the Middle East, in North and South America...) you'd likely have a
> > different view. Ask the North American Indian tribe about the joys of
> > Christianity. But again, it is not about "Christianity", it is about the
> > actions of the power structure to gain and maintain power. The church has
> > been just as "brutal" in this regard as any "secualar" power structure you
> > can name.
>
> Not in modern history (since 1900).
>
> > But I find such statements "intolerance of religious belief" to be
> > "outright hillarity". Religious nationalism is by definition "intolerant of
> > any other belief", and has fueled generations upon generations of
> > intolerance. Now that some people are standing up and being critical of
> > religious nationalism, I see no greater irony possible than religion
> > complaining about "intolerance".
>
> Again, you must be thinking about the Middle Ages, and perhaps radical
> Islam which acts like it never left the Middle Ages. Today's Christians
> may not be the most tolerant people in the world, but unlike many
> intellectuals, they are not in the forefront of relativism, diversity and
> tolerance, then turn around and demonize the religious right.
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
> 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
>
>
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 Apr 21 2005 - 23:04:09 BST