From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 04 2004 - 23:31:31 BST
Platt said:
I see what you mean, I think Pirsig's 'war' between the social and
intellectual levels is less between conservatives and liberals than
between the state (the collective or group) and the individual.
dmb says:
There is certainly a historical relationship between the rise of modernity
and individuality, but I think you're fundamentally confused about how this
relates to the conflict between the two top levels in Pirsig's MOQ. Social
values are exhibited in both individuals and in the larger collective
society. Intellectual values are exhibited by individuals and social groups
too. That kind of distinction has little to do with what distinquishes the
rival forces. In fact, in describing the clash between these value systems,
Pirsig uses the New Deal, a collective government program, as a prime
example of the emergence of a new intellecual culture in America. He even
speaks here of "castes" and "classes" of intellectuals. From chapter 22...
"In the U.S. the economic and social upheavel was not so great as in Europe,
but Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, nevertheless, became the center of
a lesser storm between social and intellectual forces. 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.
The New Deal was described as a program for farmers, laborers and poor
people everywhere, but it was also a new deal for the intellectuals of
America. Suddenly, for the first time, they were at the center of the
planning process - these were people from a class that in the past could
normally be hired for little more than laborers' wages. Now intellectuals
were in a position to give order to America's finest and oldest and
wealthiest social groups. 'That man', as the old aristocrats sometimes
called Roosevelt, was turning the whole USA over to foriegn radicals,
'eggheads', 'Commies' and the like. He was a 'traitor to his class'.
Suddenly, before the old Victorians' eyes, a whole new social caste, a caste
of intellectual Brahmins, was being created ABOVE their own military and
economic castes."
Platt said:
The state wants its citizens to behave in certain, predictable ways by
following its rituals, laws and mores. For the state to survive (or any
group for that matter) it must lay down rules and practices governing
relations among individuals in the group. Thus, the social level's highest
morality is static conformity.
dmb says:
Here you equate the state with the social level, but as the "New Deal" quote
shows this ain't necessarily so. It depends on what state one is talking
about and when one is talking about it. But I agree that conformity is a
social value.
Platt said:
The individual by contrast, while recognizing the necessary role of the
state, wants to be recognized as unique human being and not just another
cog in a machine. She wants to be the means to her own ends, not the ends
of others. Most of of all, she wants to be free to act and speak according
to dictates of her own intellect,..
dmb says:
Yes. Right. I'm with you so far...
Platt continued:
...not the dictates of politically correct thought imposed by the state.
That's why she gets upset when individual opinions are stifled such as when
someone stands up to defend fundamental Christianity, or the superiority of
Western culture, or the existence of racial differences in intelligence, or
that America is a force for good in a corrupt world and gets (at best)
shouted down or (at worst) punished. The highest morality for the individual
is dynamic freedom from state (group) conformity, or as Pirsig might put it,
freedom to be degenerate..
dmb says:
Ooooh. You spoiled a perfectly good thing. Thought imposed by the state?
Like what? Unless you can refer me to something in the real world, I'm going
to take that comment as a paranoid fantasy. And the rest of it is even more
disturbing. Look at the list of issues that Platt has attempted to frame as
a free speech crisis. He is, in effect, defending fundamentalism, jingoism,
racism and nationalism. This is a recipie for fascism if ever I saw one.
Platt said:
Our constitutional Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech,
religion, trial by jury, etc., cited by Pirsig as intellectual values,
are specifically designed to protect the individual from the coercive
power of the state.
dmb says:
They are designed to protect the individual. Period. It makes no logical
sense to set up the state as the boogey man if "governments are instituted
among men in order to secure these rights", as Jefferson wrote. Its so
ironic. Conservatives think freedom is served by weakening and starving the
public institutions that are charged with protecting that freedom.
But at least we both want freedom. That's a start. Now if conservatives
could grasp what rights and freedom really mean....
Thanks.
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 : Sun Apr 04 2004 - 23:34:16 BST