From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 11 2005 - 04:41:15 BST
Hi Platt,
> I agree except I would change the word "coercion" to "influence." Would
> you object to that modification?
Well, you're right, the typical use of coercion is to describe "overt" external
manipulation (defined, for clarity, as causing a person to act in a way that
they would not normally act devoid of said manipulation). "Influence", however,
sounds "weak" to me for what I consider to be very powerful "covert" external
manipulations.
Giddens uses the term "structurates", and Bourdieu uses "habitus" to describe
(and this is a gross oversimplification of both) for what you may call "covert
external influences" that occur as a result of the internalization of
particular ideologies. (Note, again, that both consider some "habitus" to be an
indismissable aspect of intellectual being).
Thus, (and perhaps this is tangental) SOM can be said to be "structurating" in
the way that it covertly influenced people into internalizing values that led
to the "crisis" of ZMM. The MOQ would also have a structurating effect, and
DOES, on those of us who adopt its tenets (albeit one, we believe, with less
negative consequences).
I say this to highlight that there are two very different, and yet often
interrelated, aspects to covert "influence". One occurs in immediate messages
(such as advertising and speech-making), the other is more longitudinal and
deep and occurs as the result of adopting, or being habituated to, a particular
Weltanschauung.
Getting back to your question, I can agree to "influence", so long as we
understand that I consider it to be a very powerful, invisible force.
> > And, as I've said, I don't care, so long as we are clear
> > that he is voicing "opinion", and not a statement of some form of
> > generalizable truth.
>
> Well, in my opinion he speaks a generalized truth. :-) But, I get your
> point.
Fair enough. It's good to reach some consensus with you... even if it is only
this once. :-)
> > What's interesting is that it is the core topic MSH started this thread
> > about. I'll rename it "MOQ and the Moral Society (Refined)" and see if
> > maybe that would make things fresh.
>
> Paste my answers to the questions posed by MSH here. Technically I don't
> know how to combine this post with the one I just sent answering his
> questions.
I've posted a brief response there, actually a restated challenge that had led
to this discussion, namely some evidence (historical or otherwise) for you
claim that "less government interference" (in your conversation with MSH
"anti-trust laws") means "better Quality" lives for the majority of citizens.
No need to reply to this here, we'll move it over there if need be.
(And I've disallowed brutal military dictatorships and small embargoed islands,
just so you know... )
> I wholeheartedly agree that underlying assumptions be made available. In
> fact, as I've said before, the purpose of philosophy to me is to search
> for underlying assumptions and to check their validity both empirically
> and logically.
Well said.
> > But, by making one's underlying assumptions open, one can examine the claim
> > without dismissing the politicization. One can also examine the claim
> > without concern over the source.
> I think you've hit the nail with your emphasis on underlying assumptions. I'll
try to keep that in mind in future conversations. I'll put a note above my
computer screen as a reminder.
Two points of consensus in one night! Platt, I'd buy you a beer if you lived
nearby. Wait... you're not attempting the old "rope-a-dope" manuever on me, are
you? ;-)
> The advances in communication technology have made such collective
> endeavors (or perhaps "cooperative" is a better word) possible. Even a
> "me, me, me" like me can see the benefits, such as this site provides.
> Nor do I see any harm in Amish collective barn building. :-)
Three!? I do agree that communication technology is a strong factor
(structurating force?) in these types of cooperative endeavors. What I do think
it demonstrates nicely (besides being a global, multi-lingual resource) is that
people can find motivation to spend considerable amounts of time working
towards making something for which they receive no material rewards (the
articles do not attribute credit to any author).
The question I have, and you've answered it I believe, is that will this type of
behavior (call it cooperative, collective, communal, community-minded,
non-proprietary, whatever) be "increasing" or "decreasing".
My belief, of course, is that as people see the flaws in materialistic
ideologies (I bet Ham is sorry he got me using that word!), they will adopt
more community-minded behaviors. This will be a ground-up swelling emerging
from individuals, not from government programs.
But, as Ham pointed out, I am an idealist after all...
Arlo
PS: You mentioned once living in the south, I hope you are not currently being
hurricaned!
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 Jul 11 2005 - 04:45:30 BST