Hi DMB, John B., All:
> DMB says:
> You never fail to miss the point. For the million and oneth time, its all
> about distinquishing between social and intellectual values. No meaningful
> difference between socialism and communism? Of course there are real
> differences, but yes, they are both programs for the intellectual control
> of society. So was the New Deal. So is liberalism. I'm sure there are more
> 4th level political ideologies. Take your pick. But don't pretend
> capitalism is a 4th level ideology.
Perhaps you will explain why you exclude John Locke, Adam Smith,
Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, Irving Kristol,
William F. Buckley, Ayn Rand and other philosophical conservatives
from the intellectual level. Is this another case of "all those who disagree
with me are social level retards?"
>The only reason I failed to mention
> communism is because it has never existed.
Oh? Really? Tell that to the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans.
>According to Marx, commusnism
> occurs at the end of history and is defined as the total dissolution of the
> state. Its the ultimate utopian pipe-dream and I seriously doubt if it ever
> will exist. But socialism is easy to see. There is Canada, which has the
> best human rights record on earth.
Who says so? What liberal think tank or UN committee is keeping
score?
> France and England are examples of a
> good mix. They were the home of the Enlightenment and have the longest
> traditions of modern democracy. Holland is a good example, a very liberal
> and humane society. There's still lots of room for improvement and they all
> have their share of reactionaries, but its unreasonable to expect
> perfection with something as messy as the distribution of money, power and
> authority. Boys will be boys, you know. These things are still being worked
> out. Historically speaking, programs for the intellectual control of
> society are still very young.
It's that little word "control" that conjures up the KGB and Gestapo.
Pirsig is on shaky ground using "control" in a political context. He
captures his own position better when he uses "guide" instead.
But even that fails to convey his major thesis: So long as the dominant
metaphysics of intellectuals remains SOM, they have no business
interfering in people's lives. They will just screw everything up. Here's
how and why, from Chap. 24 of LILA:
"Phaedrus thought that a Metaphysics of Quality could be a
replacement for the paralyzing intellectual system that is allowing all
this destruction to go unchecked. The paralysis of America is a
paralysis of moral patterns. Morals can't function normally because
morals have been declared intellectually illegal by the subject-object
metaphysics that dominates present social thought. These subject-
object patterns were never designed for the job of governing society.
They're not doing it. When they're put in the position of controlling
society, of setting moral standards and declaring values, and when they
then declare that there are no values and no morals, the result isn't
progress. The result is social catastrophe."
David's solution? Socialism with DQ. But as yet we haven't heard the
specifics of that wonderful new "program" that, in David's mind anyway,
will produce heaven on earth. I can't wait. Maybe John B. can kick in
with some ideas on how government should make "interventions in the
marketplace" to bring about Shangri La. Anyone else care to take a
crack at designing the brave new world?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST