From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 00:08:53 GMT
Hi Platt,
>> Steve:
>>
>> DMB is one of the elite? Wow, that's high praise! I hope you think as much
>> of me. ;-)
>>
>> That anti-intellectual anti-"liberal elite" rhetoric might play well on the
>> No-nonsense, Everyman, Fair and Balanced news programs, but not here. It
>> is strange to hear you who is so willing to admit that some things are
>> better than others swayed by such language. I would expect an intellectual
>> such as you to bristle at, for example, Bill O'Reilly's attempts to make
>> the average Joe's gut feelings seem just as worthy as the ideas of those
>> egg-head "elites" who think too much.
>>
>> Can you explain why you join many conservatives in using elite as a slur?
>> Seriously, I thought as an intellectual armed with the MOQ you would want
>> to count yourself among the elite?
Platt:
> I don't know about joining other conservatives, but I join with Pirsig and
> American Indians in not considering myself among the elite:
>
> "Of all the topics his slips on Indians covered, freedom was the most
> important. Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the
> world, the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest.
> It was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil
> War. To this day it's still the most powerful, compelling ideal holding
> the whole nation together." (Lila, chp. 3)
Here you and Pirsig are talking about the social elite. Is this then a
clarification of calling DMB one of the elite--that you think DMB is part of
the *social* elite? Did I miss some of DMBs biography in this on-going
discussion? Is DMB near the top of the social hierarchy? Though I don't
have any data, I had thought that conservatives were more likely to be of
the upper class.
> I love Pirsig's description of how intellectuals, who were considered by
> the Victorians to be low on the social scale, were suddenly elevated to
> the upper tier during the early part of the 20th century. You won't learn
> that in your politically correct version of American history being
> fostered on students today.
I would say that this cultural shift is exactly what conservatives who use
the term "liberal elite" are objecting to. They want to cut those
smarty-pants intellectuals who think they know better than we do down to
size.
Pirsig talked about American's love/hate relationship with celebrities. We
love them because they represent what is socially best. We hate them
because we are all supposed to be equal. As our culture has become more
intellectually dominated there is a similar backlash against intellectuals
that I think is behind such terms as "liberal elite." Our egalitarian
ideals say that intellectuals aren't supposed to be better than anyone else,
either, but the MOQ says that it is better to be intellectually dominated
than socially dominated.
> Social snobbery has shifted from who your ancestors were and how much
> money you inherited to how much political influence you have (or wished
> you had) so you can persuade government to coerce others into doing what
> you think is best for them.
>
> Those in this discussion group who fit that description I call "elites."
Let me see if I have it right. Your "elite" is someone who wants to impose
his values on others? DMB is an "elite" because he wishes he had the
political power to impose what he thinks is best for people on people.
And you think that's bad. I know it can be bad and condescending and
disrespectful to do that, but I thought you wanted to bring Democracy to
Iraq. I thought you agreed with me that Democracy would be better for
Iraqis than life under a dictator. Aren't we imposing our values on the
Iraqis?
Pirsig would have us support intellect over society and society over
biology, but maybe it's hard to draw the line between leading horses to
water and making them drink in some cases.
But does Pirsig think we should be so passive about what we think is right?
Lila, Chap. 24:
"And this is a war in which intellect, to end the paralysis of society, has
to know whose side it is on, and support that side, never undercut it.
Where biological values are undermining social values, intellectuals must
identify social behavior, no matter what its ethnic connection, and support
it all the way without restraint. Intellectuals must find biological
behavior, no matter what its ethnic connection, and limit or destroy
destructive biological patterns with complete moral ruthlessness, the way a
doctor destroys germs, before those biological patterns destroy civilization
itself."
It seems to be a logical extension that intellectuals *should* use political
power to limit social threats to intellectual patterns. That extension
would be needed for an MOQ justification for war in Iraq, anyway.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 00:16:43 GMT