NOT ONLY DID WOMEN NOT DESERVE TO VOTE....NEITHER
DID MANY OTHER LESSER EDUCATED SOCIAL DEFECTIVES.
XCTO on 5Dec 98 writes:
>XCTO> WOMEN DID NOT DERSERVE TO VOTE UNTIL 1920.
>Now this is where i get controversial. In the US democracy
>in 1787 they [...] did not allow women to vote. I think that this
>was a correct choice in that women were not educated
>enough to make proper democratic choices at that time
>(the intellectual POV). I personally think that women reached
>that point in the mid 1800's.
How right you are. One admires the courage of someone who
dares to challenge orthodox viewpoints. You do not go far enough
in your analysis. I would put it much later than the 1800's.
Why even TODAY I know many women who are quite simply
still not educated enough to vote. Frankly, there are many
social defectives who should have their voting rights
removed for the sake of our society. Or perhaps we might
apply a weighting system to voting, so that if one has a proper
university education one gets 5 votes, whereas if one is an
uneducated black person from LA, one get only 1 vote.
Come to think of it, that is the current de facto situation, because
luckily our WASP ethos dominates the TV networks and therefore
enables us civilised individuals to somewhat restrain the baser
instincts of the less educated. Just imagine the chaos that would
result if all these defectives and sub-normals were allowed full
free speech on our airwaves. One is apalled at the thought, as my
friend Prince Charles of her Majesty's House of Windsor once said
to one at one of one's tea parties given one time by one.
One other thing, perhaps that charming and much misunderstood
gentleman Mr Hitler (who came from a very respectable family-
I am told) had the right idea all along. You know, some of our greatest
thinkers have had their ideas so cruelly twisted by lesser minds. If we
could launch a quick overnight blitzkrieg and eliminate all these slovenly
gypsies, and dirty women whose overfondness for sex is littering our
already burdened planet with yet more scruffy infants, then perhaps
us intelligent free thinkers would get a chance at last to build a society
where the clear light of intellect would finally shine out for all to see.
one remains, as ever
Lord Fintan Mary Dunne, 3rd
M.P.S.I. S.W.A.L.K. B.S.C. DFC and Bar. Rt Hon .(Retired)
P. S. I see that rascal Roger has suggested there are only three levels
in the MOQ. I will be adding him to my list of those to be eliminated when
the time comes for us to stand by our country. You would do well to have
very little to do with that type of scruff in the future. I regret to inform
you that if you continue to associate with him or his ilk, then you will
understand that in all conscience ( and i AM a man of conscinece )
I could not be seen to invite you to the the Manorial House for any of
the forthcoming tea-parties or weekend gatherings. I am sure you will
understand, as it would simply not be fair to my other guests who have
their positions in society to look to. I hope you will understand, as I
would miss your keen abilities in our regular rubbers of bridge, not to
mention your fine cross-court backhand at tennis doubles.
By the way, how is your mothers' gout? Improved I hope.
P.P.S. While I am at it, I have never trusted that butler of yours-
Seppings. The man has a somewhat shifty air about him.
Were I you, I would engage someone else.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xcto@aol.com <Xcto@aol.com>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: MD Program: Brain, Mind and Intellect
>XCTO COMMENDS DONNYS ADDITION AND POINTS OUT A POSSIBLE NEW LOGICAL
CONSTRUCT
>OF MOQ. Also uses a strand of his line of thinking to stir up some
>controversy - idea - WOMEN DID NOT DERSERVE TO VOTE UNTIL 1920.
>
>In a message dated 12/4/98 8:24:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Donny) writes:
>
> > What I would like to add to this is that Intellectual value
> >rhythms manafest out of social moral rhythms and so always have a social
> >ellement to them (ie. Living species are made up of "matter"; societies
> >are made from an organic species; and intellctual "truth" is made from
> >society.)
>
>YES, this is absolutely true. Now, is it possible that the fragmentation
of
>disciplines such as math/science, language study, art, music, athletics,
etc
>creates different social patterns which in turns creates different and
>competing intellectual patterns (i guess i should say POINTS OF VIEW
(POVs)?
>This is an interesting hypothesis in that there would be a grouping of
>overlapping POVs that would continually be growing and shrinking as the
social
>groups pick up or change or disregard current POV's. There would be some
>consensus (such as in the field of basic mathematics) but obviously there
will
>be many fringe groups (such as in art and music). These amorphous POV will
be
>held by many groups, but may change depending on intellectual quality
events
>in the different social groups. My example is Copernicus. The Greeks knew
>that the world was round, and if they survived all of Europe would have had
>that POV. But the common view was that the world was flat. I would say
that
>there was a consensus of intellectual patterns of a Flat Earth within all
the
>social groups. BUT when Copernicus and others gave their arguments, the
>scientific community agreed and that social group changed their POV.
>Gradually other groups changed too, until a couple of decades ago when the
>Catholic Church finally agreed with this (some time in the 1970's
>---really!!!). As a result that single intellectual POV grew to be a
>consensus (except to the "Flat Earthers") Hey, Lila was a group and POV of
>one...
>
>
> > (1) ONLY a society that has ideals (SocPoVs) suitable to
> >intellectual morals will have IntPoVs. The *society* (as a collective)
> >must hold that there is a better way to settle argumants than social
> >statuss... that anyone can deduce and realize the -- objective -- truth
> >regardless of what they're station may be
>
> > Here in the South we have a term (and parden my use of it) that
>> still creeps around in our discourse: "trick niger." Until (basically)
> >recently there was a great prejaduce that black people were basically
> >dumber than white people. They were somewhere in-between animals and
> >"real" human-beings. So, whenever it did turn-up that there was a black
>> man who was of some exceptional intellegence (maybe he'd read Emmerson or
>> could do multiplication in his head... or was a classically trained
>> musician) it was assumed -- just naturally taken for granted -- by
> >(typical, white) Southerners that this was not a black man of exceptional
> >intelligence or eduacation... but a "trick niger." There was some kind
of
> >trick involved; like Roy Roger's horse, Trigger, who could (apparently)
do
> >arithmatic by stomping his foot.
>
>> Only since about WWI has it come to be held, popualerly, that
> >there is an -objective- ellement to the truth -- that truth stands
> >independent of race, creed, or income... such that, now, blacks, women,
> >Native Americans, and everybody can be potential, suitable judges of
> >truth. This is a SOCIAL value that must be in place in order for
> >Intellectual rhythms to flower. John Leonard once said that the first
200
> >years of American history can be seen as the gradual expansion of the
"we"
> >in "We the people..." (This is why when someone [Fintan] suggests that
> >Social morality should re-dominate intellectual freedom/objectivity, I
git
> >a bit miffed because I see this as an attack on the ideals my nation was
> >founded on.)
>
>Now this is where i get controversial. This idea is great! I completely
>agree with Donny. Now let's take a look at why women were not allowed the
>rights of men from this perspective. The woman's position in life in
most
>human history up to the Renaissance was of homemaker and child bearer.
After
>that, royalty educated both men and women. Later most men were educated
and
>much later women too. This is another example of IntPOV on top of social
>groups. In the US democracy in 1787 they created this thing called the
>Constitution. They did not allow women to vote or blacks to be free (this
is
>an interesting call to discuss as well-done only to create a unified
>north/south country). But at the same time they created equal education
for
>all (a uniquely Unitied States concept even today).
>I think that this was a correct choice in that women were not educated
enough
>to make proper democratic choices at that time (the intellectual POV). But
>the change was made in the social groups to enable the social groups to
reach
>the educational level for them to fight for their rights. I personally
think
>that women reached that point in the mid 1800's but the intellectualPOV
>changes still didn't complete the social adjustment necessary for it to
happen
>-the consensus of enough Social Groups wasn't reached. This idea of
consensus
>and the related idea of exception , to me, is a very important POV. Hey,
if
>you want to respond to my idea, please, START A NEW PROGRAM LINE. If you
want
>to critique my POV idea i guess we could argue in the current program.
What
>do you think?
>
>
> > Pirsig emphasizes the Greeks, but I think he's giving them too
> >much credit. I think the Intelectual level is -- primarily -- the child
> >of the Enlightenment philosophs (Voltare and Rousseau) and the
> >philosopher/poloticians who put their ideas into effect (Jefferson,
> >Franklin and Adams). Intellectual morality grew out of Western Europe
and
> >the collonies... and I'll let my countrey take a lot of the credit for
> >leading the way, if you don't mind. (But, as I've said before, this
> >Ethno-centric/Euro-centric view of history does bug me -- and the more I
> >read Spengler's revisionist history *The Decline of the West* the more
and
> >more suspicious I become.)
>
> > (2) I emphasize that IntPoVs are a *means of communication*.
> >Dwight Van de Vate (a philosopher just retired from my university -- and
> I> mean a real philosopher and not a philosologist) once said, "You'll get
> >a lot farther if you stop thinking about science as a window into the
mind
> >of God, and think of it as, primarily, a way in which we talk to one
> >another."
>
> > The intellectual morals are the rules of (scientifc/achademic/
> >judicial/etc.) discourse. The intellectual values are the values of
PROOF.
> >A proof is a way you settle an argument -- spicifically: It is whatever
> >your society holds is the best, most socialaly accepted, most MORAL way
to
> >settle the argument. If we have a disagreement, I can employ a number of
> >ways to convince you I am right. I can bribe you. Blackmail you. I could
> >charm you w/ my wit and charisma. I could send Knuckles and Rocko over
to
> >your house to beat the crap out of you. But we (as a society) hold that
> >there is a best way to settle this. That is: for me to offer you a
> >rational, intelligable, sound proof. So, think of a court of law. The
> >jurry's job (moral imperative) is to be objective, intellectual beings.
To
> >not be swayed by charisma, money, intemidation... but to way "the facts"
> >and come to a logical conclusion. And again I'll stress: This is the
> >Enlightenment ideal -- not the Greek. (Socrates is rarly ever rational.
> >He's a sophist -- the best of them -- and he uses every little rhetorical
> >trick in the book. Any *Saterday Night Live* fans out there? Socrates
> >comes across like Phil Harman's "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.")
>
> > So, point #2 is: Intellectual value rhythms only arise among
> >multiple persons (person = a social entity). Robinson Caruso on his
> >island, building a hut and fire and snares to catch food... this is NOT
an
> >example of IntPoVs! Not only does IntPoVs not = mind, but it does not =
> >reason/logic either. It must include this social ellement in it. My cat
> >can emply reason/logic to a certain extent -- she can "figure something
> >out."
>
> > Now, before the spears start flying, I know that this is NOT
> >exactly RMP's view. I've seen passages in LILA that clearly sugest
IntPoVs
> >are a kin to ego or mind or logic or your own picture of the world
> >(contradicting my point #2) and toward the end of LILA he talks about
> >non-Western IntPoVs, spicifically Native American IntPoVs (contradicting
> >my point #1), and even says that "going mad" is nothing more than leaving
> >Western IntPoVs for non-Western views (a "crazy person" is one w/
> >unreasonable view who can't be persuaded to change those views no matter
> >what kind of air-tite logic you argue w/). On the other hand, in a
> l>etter to Anthony, RMP *defined* the IntPoVs as the values of reason,
> >clarity, comunicability and logical soundness (this would mean a crazy
> >person has -no- IntPoVs) -- so, personaly, I don't think Pirsig is clear
> >in his own head about this topic.
>
>Well, Donny, i don't agree with the above, but i don't want to get into it
>right now
>maybe in another post.
>xcto
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST