From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 22:31:32 GMT
Hi David,
One last attempt to explain my point of view.
> Sam said:
> As such, the Church/State division is 'non-negotiable', as it is one of
the
> foundation pillars of the public sphere within the US. In making this
> element non-negotiable, that element becomes absolute and hence - as I
> understand the term - it becomes philosophically equivalent to a theology,
> and the system which supports it is theocratic in an analogous sense.
>
> DMB says:
> Um. Excuse me, but for something to properly be called "theocratic"
wouldn't
> it have to be about God? Checks are non-negotiable too. Does that make
them
> theocratic? I think you're stretching words beyond recognition and
otherwise
> bending over backwards to turn political principles into religion, into
> theological absolutes. I'd hate to see you slip a disk. :-)
In MoQish, non-negotiable checks are the outcome of values that are static
latched. Checks are a static latch within a much larger system, that of
modern finance. That larger system itself is embedded in an even wider
system of static latches, ie modern capitalism (property, free trade, GATT
etc etc). And finally that system of modern capitalism, although autonomous
in many ways, can be embedded in an intellectual framework of values (fill
in a description as you wish) - and it is certainly structured around
certain values, whether they are consciously articulated or not. Thus checks
derive their value from their role in the wider system.
My point about absolutes refers solely to the highest values in that
structure, not to all the different elements cascading down (although I
would exclude human decisions from that - which has interesting implications
that can be pursued elsewhere). Those highest values - which theologians
call the
'ultimate values' - determine the overall structure. These ultimate values
are what I claim to be "philosophically equivalent to a theology", for the
simple reason that I think the word 'god' (not God) can be substituted for
the phrase 'ultimate value' without loss of sense.
The Church/State separation is a static latch of a particular value
structure oriented around a certain highest value - one, I would argue,
descending from John Locke's subordination of religious beliefs to rational
evaluation (a good contender for the birth of modern thought, even more than
Descartes).
Now that particular value structure makes certain claims about religion and
rationality that are unavoidably judgements of value (something which SOM
thinkers would doubtless deny, but which is surely axiomatic from a MoQ
point of view).
Hence my line of thought that the Church/State division is itself theocratic
in the way I described.
Perhaps the problem is what we count as 'religion' - because as you've said
many times, for you religion irrevocably tied in to the social level, and
can't be intellectual. I disagree with that.
So let me ask: how would you describe the value structure of which the
Church/State division is a static latch, and do you think there is a
governing value for it? (The intellectual level as such? In which case, what
is the guiding value of it?)
Sam
"Bush's speechwriters may be able to help him talk the talk, but does he
kneel the kneel?" (Alex Pennell)
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 : Sun Mar 02 2003 - 09:52:53 GMT