From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Mar 20 2004 - 23:36:22 GMT
JoVo and all liberal MOQers:
JoVo said;
this question is directed more to the American fellows on this platform.
What I don't really understand concerning American culture in general
and this election specifically is the use of the concept of 'liberal'. ...
The reason to dwell on that is, that I consider it to be as one of
Pirsigs messages in his two books - as pronounced by most philosophers
by the way - that an individual should aim at making independant
choices in all his doings; taking responsibility for what he does. To do
so he should get rid of - or better - should carefully review his
opinions to sort out those, that basically stick to the social and not
the intellectual level.
dmb replies:
The word has slightly different meanings depending on where and when you
are. Here in the States lots of people will tell you that they are socially
liberal and fiscally conservative. (Which means they are sleazy tightwades.
Just kidding.) But basically the word is opposed to "conservative".
Conventional wisdom hold that the Democratic party is for liberals and the
Republican party is the home of conservatives. (Its really a lot more
complicated, but I'll spare you the boring details.) And in Pirsigian terms,
these two rivals basically represent the conflict between intellectual and
social values.
"The hurricane of social forces released by the overthrow of society by
intellect was most strongly felt in Europe, ..where Communism and socialism,
programs for intellectual control over society, were confronted by the
reactionary forces of fascism, a program for the social control of
intellect." P274
"The New Deal was many things, but at the center of it all was the belief
that intellectual planning by the government was necessary for society to
regain its health. ...it was also a new deal for the intelllectuals of
America." P274
dmb says:
The New Deal was the most liberal, most left leaning government in American
history, but it still was far from the kind of socialism we saw in Europe.
It would probably be considered moderate by European standards. In any case,
I think we can see that liberalism, socialism and communism are not
everywhere the same, but what they have in common, according to Pirsig, is
that they are all aimed at intellectual, rather than social, control of
society. By contrast, fascism, fundamentalism and conservatism are not
everywhere the same, but what they all share in common is the wish for
social control of society.
JoVo said:
Furthermore, Pirsig pleads for a free market in contrast to a guided
marked. Note that this also fits the definition of what I quoted above
from my dictonary.
dmb replies:
Right. Pirsig's MOQ calls for intellect over society, but it also calls for
DQ over intellect. This is why he's in favor of a free market. Its Dynamic.
This is not a paradox or contradiction. To reconcile the two is easier said
than done, but that's becasue its so very easy to say. What the MOQ calls
for is an intellectually guided society, some kind of liberalism or
socialism, that does NOT make the mistake of blocking out DQ. Not only is
capitalism less moral, it never figured out DQ either. They were correct,
but without knowing why.
"That's what neither the socialists nor the capitalists ever got figured
out. From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism.
Its a higher form of evolution. It is an intellecually guided society, not
just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives
socialism its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but
killed the whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite DQ."
P220
JoVo said:
What I do not understand - and I follow the American press quite
intensively during the last weeks - why some MOQ-discussers on this
platform oppose so fervently all people that call themselves 'liberal'!
This stand does not seem to fit to basical 'Pirsig-standards' IMO.
Maybe, Platt, you could explain that to me as you seem to oppose very
much American 'liberals'.
dmb says:
As one of the American liberals that Platt very often opposes, I too think
Platt's views don't fit the MOQ. Or more precisely, Platt usually takes what
the MOQ describes as the less moral position in the social/intellectual
conflict. This baffles me. I honestly don't know how anyone could read and
study Pirsig for years and still fail to see where Pirsig is politically. He
even refers to himself explicitly as a "liberal intellectual". These basic
MOQisms are so clear and simple that they can only be resisted by sheer
force of will. In fact, I've confronted Platt with these quotes many times
and nothing has ever made a dent, which is only to be expected. There is an
extremely stubborn, even militant, quality to the reactionary mind. As in
the case of George Bush, there seems to be an infinite capacity to ignore
uncomfortable facts in the conservative mind, "hopelessly static" as Pirsig
puts it.
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 Mar 20 2004 - 23:40:07 GMT