RE: MD Beyond Liberalism?

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 20:47:58 GMT

  • Next message: "MD SQ-SQ coherence and the Biosphere."

    Morey, Norton and all MOQers:

    I'm thinking that Sam might be interested in this because it relates to our
    discussion of "the liberal contradtiction".

    David MOREY re-asked:
    Did you have any thoughts on: How are we going to get more people on this
    level and off of the dominance of the social level. I think that
    mal-functioning aspects of the social level, such as inequality and the
    failure to reduce working hours, is making progress currently impossible. Or
    do you think the key to change is through intellectual/cultural change? My
    concern was about the blocks in our current social arrangements to even
    addressing the problems of SOM intellect and culture.

    dmb says:
    I wasn't trying to avoid your questions or change the subject. Its just that
    I don't think we can really solve the practical problems on a practical
    level. If I understand what Pirsig is saying, the political conflicts of our
    time are just one of the most obvious ways in which a much larger battle is
    playing itself out. If there is a metaphysical cause behind the conflict,
    then that is also where the solution will be found. If I understand what
    Wilber, Pirsig and others are saying, the two sides in this conflict
    represent different value systems, different world views and speak entirely
    different languages. The same basic flaw has been well described by Pirsig
    and Wilber. Add Alan Watts to this list too. I am extremely sympathetic to
    causes like equal rights and good working conditions, but questions that
    center exclusively on economic and political turf wars strike me as part of
    that rabbit chase Pirsig bemoans. I think Alan Watts gets at your questions,
    or rather explains how we've been trapped into asking them...

    In the introduction to his book, "THE SUPREME IDENTITY":
    "To work for peace and order on the purely political or economic level may
    be effective in certain subordinate instances, but to work exclusively or
    even primarily at this level is about as unrealistic a procedure as may be
    imagined. A society which cannot agree what man is for, which cannot be
    unamimous in some philosophy of man's true destiny, cannot be a united
    society. ...If you do not know what an automoblie is for, (or what a
    motorcycle is for) it is absurd to think that you can run or repair it
    intelligently. To educate man merely to earn his living in harmony with
    others is simply giving him the power to live without a goal, and even
    without any principle of harmony. It is to set him going just for the sake
    of going, with the request that he help others to go also, and not get in
    their way. But when no one knows WHERE he is going- except to some place
    where he can just keep on going- the result is a confusion and futility
    which no amount of well-meaning liberalism can control. Man needs somewhere
    to go. We must ask, then, whether there is any hope that modern philosophy,
    science and religion may provide an answer."


    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 : Sun Mar 14 2004 - 20:50:52 GMT