From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 19:06:16 BST
Hi Phyllis,
I think my original reply to you was never sent.
You're right about earlier non-conformists, those are good examples.
And I'm glad you love Edwards, "Sinners..." is some great imagery. Have you
come across his philosophical stuff he did as a teenager, when he was at
Yale in 1720? That's when he thought about ontology and the nature of
being, before he became a pastor and srote his sermons. After the
Northhamptom congregation kicked him out (perhaps the turning point of
turning points in American culture, when Pelagianism and a private
relationship with God started pushing out public morality. Northhamptom to
this day maintains its nonconformist, self-righteous character) he went back
to philosophy again, writing Freedom of the Will in western Mass, before he
moved to become president of Princeton and caught a cold and died. if you
can find James Carse's book on Edwards called "The Visibility Of God", I
recommend that one the most, for its treatment of Edwards failure to save
America from the lasting effects of a private morality. That's why I love
Lila so much, though it pulls its punch and doesn't connect the dots, it
almost restores morality to its full importance.
regarding the morality of reformers, they usually are either at the
intersection of two cultures, helping to control the merging of moralities
(and thus figuring out how to be is moral as possible, but necessarily being
immoral in some regard in both cultures), or they are helping to reconcile
intersecting moral patterns in one culture that have developed over time.
They start out being immoral in some regards, using persuation to convince
people to change their normal behavior by pointing to other elements of
morality. They convince people over time that most people would behave in a
new way for some moral reason, but they have to be able to give an accepted
moral reason as their persuation for people's wills to change, they can't
just do it with force or extortion.
johnny
>From: "phyllis bergiel" <neilfl@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Undeniable Facts
>Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:32:04 -0500
>
>Platt and Johnny -
>
>I'm getting very confused about who said what, but it seems your ethical
>relativism discussion
>might like a new voice - and a turn back to a more Pirsigian channel.
>
>First, the beats were probably not the first. Look back at Frank Lloyd
>Wright, Hemmingway, Henry Miller, Louis Bromfield; the Roaring Twenties had
>quite a lot to say about nonconformity. Look farther back, in philosophy -
>Nietzsche, Bentham, Mill, Socrates himself was fairly nonconformist for his
>time - if only he'd taken money for his teaching, many would have thought
>him more "normal."
>
>Second, I will encourage everyone to read philosophers (not the
>philosophologists) - very readable ones too. Try Louis Pojman, one is "A
>Defense of Ethical Objectivism" the other is titled "Who's to Judge?"
>Johnny, I think you'd be very interested in one of Pojman's main points
>against the ethical relativism you're advocating (if I'm understanding you
>correctly): if it's wrong to go against the mores of one's culture, then
>the reformer is always, without exception, morally wrong. Therefore,
>Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ were morally wrong in their
>actions. Platt - not all colleges and universities, even state schools,
>have succumbed to the relativist bandwagon.
>
>Third, (I did mention Pirsig) I would contend that the dynamic is the
>(metaphorical) realm where absolute morals reside, before they are
>assimilated into static social patterns or argued over by intellectual
>ones.
>
>Phyllis
>
>PS - I love Jonathan Edwards! Ever try reading the spider part of "In the
>Hand of an Angry God" out loud to someone?
>
> > Before they (really it was the beats like Ginsburg and Kerouac) made it
>cool
> > to disparage morality as a repressive drag that heroic people ignore. I
> > looked up "Kerouac" on m-w.com to check my spelling, he's described as
> > writing in a "non-conformist style" - exactly! That "you should do what
>you
> > shouldn't do" is what I am opposed to, as it is an obvious
>contradiction.
> > Being a non-conformist just because conformity is seen as bad is what I
>am
> > opposed to. I just want to affirm the connection between what we should
>do
> > (what most would probably do) and what we should do (what we ought to
>do).
> > To admit the empirical truth about what we should do instead of trying
>to
> > construct an elaborate lie to exempt ourselves from morals we don't
>like.
> > Should means should.)
> >
> > >Maybe this is an example of the newer and better morality that on one
> > >hand you disparage, on the other hand endorse. The idea that whatever
> > >most people do in Zimbabwe is moral in Zimbabwe is the new moral
> > >relativism and equivalency being taught in schools and colleges today
>in
> > >the name of diversity, tolerance and political correctness. If the
>people
> > >in Mascatchooan throw every third baby girl into a bonfire as a
>cultural
> > >rite, there's nothing wrong with that. Who are we to tell them that
>it's
> > >wrong? We must tolerate the customs of other cultures and celebrate
> > >the diversity of life. Those values are much higher than what happens
>to
> > >individual human beings within those cultures.
> > >
> > >Swallowing such a line of malarkey is the road to hell on earth. If
>that's
> > >the "new and better" morality that bothers you, I'm with you all the
>way.
> >
> > I would not tolerate those customs if anyone tried to introduce them
>into
>my
> > own, I would say it is wrong and you should conform to the culture of
>the
> > time and place you live in. Likewise, if I were a Zimbabwean, I would
>not
> > tolerate someone from America practicing their cultural imperialism on
>my
> > culture, or perhaps I would, if I decided I'd rather have a life like
> > americans have in the movies.
> >
> > It's funny you say that I 'on the one hand disparage, on the other hand
> > endorse' the new and better, because it seems like you are the one with
>a
> > hand in each camp. You don't offer a way of separating your "new and
> > better" from the hippies version, except to say that your "new and
>better"
> > is better than theirs is, is "more dynamic" or "intellectual" or "free"
>or
> > something. They feel theirs is pretty intellectual and free too. I do
> > offer a way, which is to let the patterns of culture do the 'newing and
>the
> > bettering' while firmly and absolutely maintaining that you should do
>what
> > you should do, that morality should be respected. It's not a
>contradiction
> > as you seem to believe, it is more like a system of internal checks and
> > balances. We don't need to explicitly say that everything stinks and
>should
> > be cleared of debris, dusted off and scrutinized, and then thrown out
>unless
> > it somehow is able to justify itself, in order for things to improve, we
>can
> > say that things are wonderful and watch things improve organically, as
>they
> > always have.
> >
> > > >I wouldn't condemn anyone to reading original texts written by
> > >philosophers except for a few moderns like Pirsig who take pains to
> > >make their texts readable. My reference is from Will Durant's "The
>Story
> > >of Philosophy" where in writing about Schopenhauer's ideas he says,
> >
> > Yeah, I think it is a pretension of mine to think I have to have the
> > original authors on my shelf. That particular quote doesn't say much to
> > contradict determinsism, but thanks for the permission to read secondary
> > sources anyway. (I really recommend Jonathan Edwards again on free will
>and
> > beauty, Freedom of The Will is quite readable, and there are also lots
>of
> > great interpreters out there. James Carse's book is excellent, and the
>Lee
> > book especially for it's relation to MoQ's dynamic elements:
> >>
> > > > If you think something is moral or cultural, then doing it probably
> > > > benefits culture and morality.
> > >
> > >Like Saddam Hussein? I don't think so.
> >
> > Don't understand
>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
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 : Mon May 05 2003 - 19:06:49 BST