From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 22:43:26 BST
DMB, Chuck, et al:
> Platt said:
> There appears to be a contradiction or at least a question regarding
> Pirsig's views on "social equality." At first, he praises the concept:
Pirsig:
> "The idea that "all men are created equal" is a gift to the world from the
> American Indian. Europeans who settled here only transmitted it as a
> doctrine that they sometimes followed and sometimes did not. The real
> source was someone for whom social equality was no mere doctrine, who had
> equality built into his bones. To him it was inconceivable that the world
> could be any other way. For him there was no other way of life. That's what
> Ten Bears was trying to tell them. Phaedrus thought the Indians haven't yet
> lost this one. They haven't yet won it either, he realized; the fight isn't
> over. It's still the central internal conflict in America today. It's a
> fault line, a discontinuity that runs through the center of the American
> cultural personality. It's dominated American history from the beginning
> and continues to be a source of both national strength and weakness today."
> (Lila, 3)
>
> Platt later added:
> ......But keep in mind he is specifically talking about social equality,
> not biological or intellectual. And by social equality he meant equality of
> social classes, or absence of hereditary classes such as found in Europe.
> At least, that's how I read it.
>
> dmb says:
> There is a reason the phrase "all men are created equal" appears in quotes.
> Pirsig is quoting the declaration of independence, which adds European
> enlightenment philosophy to the the Indian's bone-deep sense of equality.
> As such, it is not just a social level value but most importantly an
> intellectual principle.
PH:
It's an idea, as Pirsig says, that was a gift from the Indians. The idea
is that no individual is inferior or superior because of his station in
life. This is made clear in the context in which Pirsig's quote above
appears:
Pirsig:
"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, 3)
PH:
The notion that "freedom from social hierarchy" is somehow an intellectual
principle is a figment of DMB's fertile imagination.
DMB:
In chapter 24, Pirsig asserts that the MOQ...
> "..says that what is meant by 'human rights' is usually the moral code of
> intellect-vs-society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
> control. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, of travel; trail by jury;
> habeas corpus; government by consent - these 'human rights' are all
> intellectual-vs-society issues. According to the MOQ these 'human rights'
> have not just a sentimental basis, but a ratonal metaphysical basis. They
> are essential to the evolution of a higher form of life from a lower form
> of life."
>
> dmb continues:
> The list of rights here obviously refers to the Bill of Rights in the U.S.
> Constitution, where the doctrine of equality was enshrined in the highest
> laws.
PH:
There's absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights about equality. The word is
nowhere to be found in that document. There's no such "doctrine" there.
DMB
> So I think this goes well beyond a rejection of European class
> structures and the like. And I think Platt is, as usual, misreading Pirsig
> in order to protect his ideology. I mean, if the principle of equality is
> the faultline in the American cultural personality, Platt is on the wrong
> side of that fault line once again.
PH:
As usual, DMB makes stuff up to promote his ideology.
> Platt quoted Pirsig:
> Cultures are not the source of all morals, only a limited set of morals.
> Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their contribution
> to the evolution of life. A culture that supports the dominance of social
> values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one that
> does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values
> over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not. It is
> immoral to speak against a people because of the color of their skin, or
> any other genetic characteristic because these are not changeable and don't
> matter anyway. But it is not immoral to speak against a person because of
> his cultural characteristics if those cultural characteristics are-immoral.
> These are changeable and they do matter. (Lila, 24)
>
> Platt asked:
> On the one hand, he says social equality is a good thing. On the other, he
> says it's not a good thing to think that all societies are equal. Is this a
> flip-flop? If not, what's the difference?
>
> dmb says:
> No, its not a flip-flop. In fact, the ideas in each quote are only enhanced
> and strengthened when we add the other. We could even simplify it so that
> even a perpetually confused conservative like Platt can understand it.
>
> Quote #1 says equality is the central fault line in America, which
> sometimes follows it and sometimes does not.
>
> Quote #2 says these rights are intellectual principles which are necessary
> for the evolution of life to higher levels.
PH:
Wrong. There's nothing in quote #2 that says equality is a "right."
DMB
> Quote #3 says societies can be judged and that intellectually guided
> societies are superior to socially guided societies.
PH:
As usual, DMB ignores Pirsig's warning about intellectually guided
societies omitting DQ.
DMB:
> Add these up and we can conclude that the US is intellectually guided TO
> THE EXTENT that rights and equality are actually honored and upheld and
> socially guided to the extent that that are not upheld. And along that
> line,...
PH:
A faulty conclusion based on a false bundling of "rights and equality," as
pointed out above.
> Chuck said:
> ...........................To me, The second quote supports the first. A
> culture may be judged by which individual or individuals said culture holds
> up as the ideal, as what that culture as whole thinks of as Quality at the
> moment. Sad commentary on the evangelistic, line-in-the-sand, war-machine
> the U.S. sees in the mirror these mornings. It gets me down.
>
> dmb says:
> Right. We can see the respect for rights and such wane as militarism,
> religiosity and other social level values increase. With this particular
> administration we see contempt for international law, the UN, for democracy
> in such places as Haiti, Venezuala, and Florida and there is very little
> respect for science and intellecuals in general. I'd say there is almost
> nothing intellectual about this gang.
>
> And talk about might-makes-right morality! These guys take the cake. I
> think it'll take at least a generation to repair the damage.
PH:
It wouldn't be a DMB post to the MOQ discussion group unless he used it as
a platform to promote his leftist agenda and demonize a nation that just
freed 53.8 million people.
Platt
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 : Sat Aug 14 2004 - 22:52:40 BST