From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Oct 21 2003 - 17:42:34 BST
I don't know if this post was torn from you. It resonates mightily. Thank
You!
Joe
> All Moqr's
>
> Normally I don't feel the need to address comments made by Platt, because
of they appear so obviously ridiculous to me. However, the following quotes
forced me to do a little soul-searching. Platt said about Rorty and his
fellow travelers (of which Matt and I would be included):
>
> "I consider Rorty and his fellow travelers dangerous to a free society
because without confidence in the concept of truth (and it's companion,
logic), the public is disarmed against lies. ("I did not have sex with that
woman . . ." is still being defended by many as a statement of fact.)"
>
> and
>
> "I find Rorty's theory of truth (what you can get away with) not only
philosophically uninteresting but more than that, socially dangerous."
>
> Now, I don't feel the need to defend Rorty here, because Scott, David and
Matt have all satisfactorily defended Rorty's position on truth and
demonstrated Platt's complete misunderstanding of this position. However,
something else jumped out at me upon reading these lines. What troubles me
is that I also consider some people's ideas dangerous. Platt and I (along
with most others) would both consider ideas endorsed by Nazi's as dangerous.
So, what do we do about it? Platt would solve the problem with a bullet.
Rorty would probably concur. I, being a pacifist, would resort to this only
as a last resort. However, I might not protest too much if others took up
arms to quiet a growing influence of Nazi and fascist ideas. So, Platt and
I really don't disagree here. But upon extension of these ideas, we
quickly part ways.
>
> Maybe this is not what Platt means, but when he says Rorty and his fellow
travelers are dangerous, I make the assumption that he would also reserve a
bullet for all of us. Or, at the very least, he believes society would be
better off if we all went away. Platt would shed no tears if Rorty, Matt or
I came to meet tragic ends. What else could he mean when he says we are
socially dangerous? Now the tragic part of all of this is that he bases his
beliefs on some distortions of pragmatism, post-modernism and Rorty.
However, lets leave that aside. Here's where the soul-searching comes in.
>
> I can't take the high ground. Because I also feel that society would be
better off if certain individuals who held dangerous ideas would come to
meet sudden and tragic ends. I don't think I would shed any tears over
their loss. Bob Dylan's "Masters of War" would shed some insight on the
feelings I have towards individuals who perpetuate war to settle
disagreements. I have to admit that I think Platt's ideas are dangerous. I
don't think he is too far removed from fascism. I think his political
ideologies have very little respect for individual freedoms. That's just
what I think (His willingness to sacrifice life for a cause, his comments
supporting the patriot act, his unwillingness to shed any compassion for the
unfortunate in the world, I have heard enough over a long time to come to
these conclusions on Platt's views). However, again I can't take the high
ground if I think the world would be better off without individuals who hold
views such Platt's.
>
> So how do we decide what is a dangerous idea? The easy answer is to say
that no ideas are dangerous, people are. We should allow everyone the
opportunity to express their ideas, no matter the consequences. But then
what do we do about the Nazi? Or about Islamic fundamentals who support
terrorism? "The Bullet" shouts Platt and people like him. What about
Communists who are responsible for the millions of lives lost during the
communist rules in Russia, China and other countries during the cold war?
"The bullet," they cry once more. The problem that I see is all the
innocent lives that are caught in the crossfire and the cycle of violence
that results from this crossfire.
>
> So, I read about the role the CIA played during the cold war in military
coups around the world. The usurpation of democratic movements around the
world for installed dictatorships with close ties to the US (I am purposely
being vague here). And I see this as great or even a greater evil. I see
the trend continuing in the US policy of preemptive strike without the full
cooperation of the rest of the world (United Nations). I don't think I
would shed many tears if those responsible for these policies met a tragic
end. So, we are caught in a grey area. As much as I'd like to stick to
pacifist principles, I can't help but feel a sort of righteous indignation
towards those who would resort to using bullets when presented with ideas
that they view as dangerous. But, I am willing to extend this as far as
feelings of relief if those individuals themselves met up with a fate
awaiting them at the opposite end of a rifle. I am willing to bet that
Platt shares equally strong fe!
> elings towards all those who hold ideas he considers dangerous.
>
> One of my fellow graduate students, whom I considered a friend, was of the
exact opposite political persuasion as I. When my home-state senator's,
well-known liberal Paul Wellstone, plane went down in northern Minnesota
killing all those aboard including his wife and daughter almost one year ago
today, I mourned in New York state for his tragic loss. It was a loss I
believed all Americans shared in. Upon speaking with my friend, who has
always honestly expressed his views without concern for offending others, he
told me he actually felt a sense of relief upon hearing the news. Like
hearing that a player for an opposing team suffered a year-end injury, he
said. He felt the conservative position in the US was suddenly much
stronger with the loss of Wellstone. I was appalled until I realized that I
might have the same feelings if an archconservative met a similar fate.
>
> I don't know the purpose of this post. Perhaps it is to simply let others
share in my dilemma while I've been soul-searching. I don't think Pirsig
offers us any way to get through this or tells us how to answer the question
of what makes an idea dangerous? I think that is why I gravitate towards
Rorty and Matt. Philosophy has nothing to say on what trait dangerous idea
might share. Instead we have to come to some agreement through a democratic
process. We must be allowed to debate and discuss the merits and the faults
of all ideas. The other option is to look for some ultimate arbiter of
truth, but this can only lead, it seems to me, to some level of
fundamentalism-whether we base this arbitration on the Bible, the Koran, or
the MOQ. I am not looking for any comments, just kind of thinking out loud.
I think when we use the MOQ as an arbiter, this is what Matt refers to as
the Kantian reading of Pirsig. I think when we use the MOQ to shed insight
into which ideas a!
> re better for us to hold at this moment in time this is what Matt refers
to a pragmatist reading of Pirsig. Although it is a struggle, and I (along
with Platt and many others) might wish for a Kantian reading, I think the
pragmatist reading holds more promise in the end.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
> 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
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 : Tue Oct 21 2003 - 17:39:14 BST