Re: MD liberals, conservatives & suffering

From: August West (
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 18:48:09 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "RE: MD squonk rider"


    This is my first post in a while, I enjoyed a
    wonderful summer following the Grateful Dead across
    America, but down to buisness.

    I think that there is a big assumption being taken
    here; that consevatives and liberals care about
    lessening my suffering beyond making sure I have my
    basic needs.

    ...America, and every other country in the world, are

    Hitting the world trade center in NYC or the pentagon
    in DC with planes didn't make Afghanistan a safer
    place. Bombing Afghanistan doesn't make the USA a
    safer place. Bombing Iraq didn't make the USA or the
    UN safer (see yesterday's newspaper). Bush's tax cut
    isn't helping the lower 85% of the income bracket, it
    isn't helping my state tax, and it isn't helping to
    save social security (which was one of his campain

    I propose that conservatives and liberals don't try to
    stop suffering; rather they cause it and profit from

    The line between conservatives and liberals is nearly
    non existiant. Just look at how simmilar, in the last
    presidential election in the USA (2000) Bush's and
    Gore's pollitical platforms were. They agreed on what
    should be done about most issues. They told us what
    we wanted to hear. America, I think , is heading
    toward facism, there aren't two parties
    philosphically, as far as representivies in government
    go there is one, statism.

    I guess that they are both right:

    Conservatives are right: the suffering is caused
    internally. That is, the government & pop culture in
    America perpetuate fear and suffering. (good film on
    this; Bowling for Colombine, by Michael Moore.)

    Liberals are right: the suffering is external to the
    parties. That is, conservatives and liberals "walk on
    the higher plane".

    Poor Joe

    Serfdom hurts.

    "400 years and its the same, the same philosophy"
    -Bob Marley


    -August West
    --- Wim Nusselder <> wrote:
    > Dear Steve,
    > Back for clearing up some old stuff.
    > You wrote 20 May 2003 19:25:41 -0400:
    > 'Wilber suggests (and I agree) that the best
    > distinguishing factor between
    > liberals and conservatives is answers to the
    > question, "why is Joe
    > Anybody suffering?"
    > ...
    > Conservatives focus on internal causation of
    > suffering and offer solutions
    > that focus on internal development.
    > ...
    > The liberals ... will suggest external solutions to
    > alleviate the suffering
    > that was imposed upon Joe from the outside.
    > ...
    > This is obviously a SOM distinction, but it is silly
    > to think that the MOQ
    > levels would do a better job than SOM in
    > distinguishing the American
    > political camps than SOM since we are talking about
    > how SOM thinking people
    > have divided themselves. This is no Platypus for the
    > MOQ to clear up. The
    > difference between liberals and conservatives is a
    > result of SOM thinking
    > and is thus easiest to understand in SOM terms.'
    > Not being an American, I have no idea about the best
    > way to distinguish
    > liberals and conservatives in the USA. In the
    > Netherlands those who call
    > themselves 'liberals' want to be as free as possible
    > from government
    > interference (which seems to be a conservative
    > position in the USA) and
    > 'conservative' is a label very few want to be
    > associated with.
    > It seems to me however, that IF a distinction
    > between internal and external
    > causation of suffering is to be reconciled, a MoQ IS
    > in a very good position
    > to do so. In a MoQ 'causation' is just a 4th level
    > pattern of values
    > (reflecting patterns of experience on any level),
    > with 'valuation' as a
    > preferred alternative. A MoQ inspired answer to the
    > question 'Why is Joe
    > Anybody suffering?' (and 'What to do about it?')
    > would not refer to 'causes'
    > at all, so the problem whether suffering is
    > internally or externally caused
    > would not come up at all. In other words: a MoQ
    > WOULD clear up this
    > platypus.
    > The observable (I hope) correlation between
    > suffering on the one hand and
    > EITHER phenomena 'internal' to the sufferer OR
    > phenomena 'external' to the
    > sufferer (which would have to decide in favour of
    > EITHER the conservative OR
    > the liberal position) does not change at all whether
    > we say
    > 'internal/external phenoma cause suffering' or 'the
    > sufferer values
    > internal/external phenomena'. As in Pirsig's example
    > ('Lila' chapter 8)
    > 'scientifically speaking neither statement is more
    > true than the other'.
    > Does that mean that a MoQ inspired answer to the
    > question 'Why is Joe
    > Anybody suffering?' would be twofold, 'a
    > conservative sufferer values
    > internal phenomena, whereas a liberal one values
    > external phenomena'? Not
    > really. A MoQ would draw attention to the pattern of
    > experience of which
    > both the suffering and the internal phenoma AND/OR
    > the external phenomena
    > are part. The MoQ inspired explanation of suffering
    > is the type of pattern
    > that correlates suffering and internal AND/OR
    > external phenomena PLUS the
    > way in which this (type of) pattern is latched.
    > Compare the inorganic pattern of value that explains
    > iron filings moving
    > towards a magnet: One could say that the iron
    > filings are somehow (internal
    > to them) 'aware' of a value of the magnet for them
    > and behave accordingly.
    > Alternatively one could say that there is (external
    > to the iron filings) a
    > degree of 'magnetism' in the magnet to which the
    > iron filings react. We can
    > bicker endlessly whether the 'internal' or the
    > 'external' description is
    > best, but this appears to me rather irrelevant to
    > the MoQ explanation: that
    > it is an INORGANIC pattern of value that correlates
    > the movement of the iron
    > filings and the presence of the magnet, implying a
    > specific way of latching
    > of this pattern.
    > So let's ignore the bickering of liberals and
    > conservatives and concentrate
    > on the question whether suffering is a part of
    > inorganic, biological, social
    > and/or intellectual patterns of value and if so,
    > which ones.
    > With friendly greetings,
    > Wim
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
    > instructions at:

    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 18:50:26 BST