From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 14:12:39 GMT
Dear Wim,
> Platt (previously)
> "you believe that the Allies' occupation of West Germany and Japan stood in
> the way of freedom rather than encouraging it to flourish? If so, how do
> you explain this sentence from Wikipedia describing the occupation of
> Japan? 'The new constitution (installed by MacArthur) guaranteed basic
> freedoms and civil liberties ...' The Allies established democratic
> governments in both German and Japan which guaranteed individual rights
> similar to those enjoyed in the U.S. Do you have contrary evidence?"
Wim:
> Imposing any rule/government (certainly if it can be experienced by the
> ruled as 'occupation') diminishes freedom.
Imposing a government which guarantees individual rights allows freedom
(DQ) to flourish. What do I mean by "individual rights?" Pirsig describes
them beautifully and succinctly:
"It 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; trial by jury;
habeas corpus; government by consent-these "human rights" are all
intellect-vs.-society issues. According to the Metaphysics of Quality
these "human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational,
metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher level
of life from a lower level of life. They are for real." (Lila, 24)
Notice the use of the words "free" and "freedom" in Pirsig's statement
above. It is in that sense that I use the word, not in the sense of
"chaos" as Pirsig sometimes means in the passage you quote: .
> Overthrowing any rule increases
> freedom. But ... "'Freedom' doesn't mean anything. Freedom's just an escape
> from something negative. The real reason it's so hallowed is that when
> people talk about it they mean Dynamic Quality." ("Lila", chapter 17)
> People do not only need Dynamic Quality, however. "That's the whole thing:
> to obtain static and Dynamic Quality simultaneously." (also "Lila", chapter
> 17) Without enough order freedom can and will result not only in DQ but
> also in chaos (or degeneracy, falling back to lower forms of quality). "It
> seems as though any static mechanism that is open to Dynamic Quality must
> also be open to degeneracy - to falling back to lower forms of quality.
> This creates the problem of getting maximum freedom for the emergence of
> Dynamic Quality while prohibiting degeneracy from destroying the
> evolutionary gains of the past. Americans like to talk about all their
> freedoms but they think it's disconnected from something Europeans often
> see in America: the degeneracy that goes with the Dynamic." (again chapter
> 17)
> The post-war governments in Germany and Japan were better than the pre-war
> ones after the occupation was lifted.
Yes, they were "better" because they guaranteed the human rights, the
precious freedoms, described by Pirsig above.
> Not because of 'imposed/inflicted
> freedom', but because they enabled new order (limits on freedom), a higher
> form of quality, that better combined static and Dynamic Quality.
No. They didn't enable "limits on freedom." Their imposition expanded
freedom.
> And also
> because of the continuity of parts of the old order in the new one.
> (Germany already had democracy; Hitler came into power by winning
> elections. The Japanese emperor kept a role in MacArthur's new
> constitution.) The new order in Germany guaranteed equality before the law
> (e.g. of Jews and non-Jews) rather than individual rights compared to the
> old one.
There were no individual rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, freedom of travel in Hitler's Germany. These freedoms were
"imposed" by the Western Allies. In East Germany, these human rights were
never imposed, resulting in a brutal, totalitarian communist rule that
many Germans tried desperately to escape from.
> The new order in Japan gave power to a large group of politicians
> (in the dominant political party: LDP) rather than a small group of
> courtiers around the emperor. The quality of Japanese democracy has never
> become very high despite MacArthur. Democracy was not unknown in Japan
> before the war (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taisho_democracy ) Germany
> didn't need establishing of democracy either.
Rule under Hitler and Tojo could hardly be called democratic. Many Germans
and Japanese grew up under those regimes and never knew democracy until
"imposed" by the Allied victors.
> Leaving the past for the present: Doesn't Iraq show the risks of chaos and
> degeneracy when you overthrow old order and fail to prepare sufficiently
> for a new order with enough continuity with the old order?
Freedom and democracy is always a risk, but it's worth fighting and dying
for. What alternative in Iraq that you would be willing to accept? Not a
victory by al-Qaeda I hope.
Warm regards,
Platt
P.S. What's the situation in Belgium today in regards to its Muslim
population?
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 Nov 12 2005 - 14:12:42 GMT