RE: MD A conflict of values

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 22:19:02 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Systematic about the Sophists (Kingsley)"

    Sam and all:

    DMB had said:
    I think that the forces and values on both sides in the present war are
    social.

    Sam asked:
    Could you unpick that a little? In other words, would you say that the
    "imposition" of democracy was the imposition of a social value?

    DMB says:
    It seems everybody agrees that Democracy is intellectual, but there are two
    problems here. The imposition of democratic values at gun point is
    imperialism. Don't be fooled or distracted by the quality of the values
    being imposed. Its the imposition itself that is social and objectionable.
    The second major problem is just basic garden variety insincerity. The
    problem with Saddam is not that he's an undemocratic thug, its that he's not
    OUR undemocratic thug. We aid and support every Kingdom and military
    Dictatorship from Pakistan to Egypt. If Bush were really out to give Iraq
    back to the people of that country, he'd be reversing many decades of
    American foreign policies. It would almost be a cheapshot to mention his
    apparent contempt for voters and the democratic process in Florida and the
    UN Security Council, but I think they really do epitomize Bush's attitude.

    Sam said:
    You and I agree that Modernism has something seriously wrong with it (as
    indeed does anyone who buys into the MoQ - we just disagree on the details).
    Yet in this situation it is Modernism which is up against both
    Fundamentalism, but also a social pattern which - correctly, IMHO - discerns
    patterns in Modernism which it rejects -*and it is right to do so*. My point
    is really that unless the West - by which I really mean the US
    administration - realises this, then it will lose. It might win this
    particular war, it might even win the next two or three, but unless it
    changes, I think it is just storing up trouble for later - as you point out.
    That doesn't mean that Modernism deserves to lose - it has a higher DQ
    potential, clearly - it's just a worry that something very big is being
    missed by Western leaders, as a result of Modernist/SOM thinking. Which the
    MoQ has something to say about.

    DMB says:
    I have a different impression of the administration, but other than that I'm
    with you. We'd likely see some kind of reactionary movement as the
    intellectual level assumes control, but for historical reasons the Western
    intellect has a flaw that exaggerates the problem. SOM says the things that
    religion values most is unreal and unimportant. That kind of treatment tends
    to anger certain people. But I'd re-assert you idea that Modernism deserves
    to win, by which I think you mean that intellect should win. The reactionary
    movements are motivated by a genuine problem, but their cure is worse than
    the disease. We don't want to abandon or destroy intellectual values, we
    just want to fix the flaw, see the blindspot. In spite of the fact that
    extrem forms only make this problem worse, the postmodern critique is far
    more preferable than the pre-modern critique. There's no going back, or
    rather, going back is degenerate. Its devolution. It represents the death
    and destruction of higher values in order to protect lower values. Its evil.

    As I see the present situation, Saddam is basically a secular
    Islamo-fascists. Bin Laden is a militant Islamic fundamentalist. Bush is New
    Right Christian fundamentalist. Obviously there are differences between
    these leaders, but the similarities scare me.

    Sam asked:
    What is NPR?

    DMB answers:
    National Public Radio, our version of the BBC. In fact, our station airs the
    BBC every night until 6am.

    Aristotle:
    The lover of myth is in a sense the lover of wisdom, for myth is composed of
    wonders.

    DMB says:
    Sadly, in today's common usage "myth" means "a lie" or "a common
    misconception". The distance between this meaning and Aristotle's view
    speaks volumes about what Modernity has done to the social level.

    Thanks.

    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 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 22:21:05 BST