From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Jun 29 2004 - 07:10:59 BST
Dear David B.,
Thanks for your constructive reply (28 Jun 2004 19:52:03 -0600) even if in a
different style than mine.
You wrote:
'And I resent it when you muck things up with your weird definitions. I
mean, since when are liberals defined as you did above'
These definitions are quite common in the Netherlands. This is not a
discussion list only for Americans.
You continued:
'What you fail to realize, and it's certainly not your fault, is that Platt
is basically a spokesman for millions. I kid you not. The man has fully
absorbed all the talking points and standard positions and speaks almost
exactly like millions of others. And the ideology he represents has learned
to speak in a kind of code. Many things are hidden and obscured in their
slogans and arguments and the only way to really see through the deception
is to be an American news junkie and even then it's not enough. Lots of
Americans have been persuaded to vote
against their own economic self interests because of "hot-button" cultural
issues. And for reasons that are not at all clear to me, Platt's use of
those commonly used talking points has persuaded a Green Dutchman that he
actually has a leg to stand on. I'm astonished that you find any merit in
Platt's political views.'
I DO realize what Platt represents. Taking in Dutch news about the USA is
enough to understand that. I agree that Platt's political views support
social patterns that I would wish changed. I nevertheless agree with a few
other of his political views. Some of his views have a leg to stand on,
others haven't, in my view. My openness to 'light' from whatever source, as
a Quaker, makes me listen for even smaller bits of 'light' (among lots of
things I disagree with) in what anyone wants so say to me who addresses me
in a form that I can stand.
You continued:
'The idea of there being a social hierarchy within a philosophical
discussion group strikes me as quite bizzare. And I simply have no patience
for anyone foolish enough to believe they could publish thier views here day
after day and expect anything OTHER than criticism. That's just part of this
kind of discussion. I suppose chat groups that deal with recipies or
woodworking would tend to stay calm and polite most of the time, but here we
are talking about matters of serious import. We're talking about values and
value systems that are in conflict. People are tend to get heated and
passionate when they debate things they care about very.'
One social hierarchy we have in this discussion group is, that Horse decides
what's allowed and what not (possibly after consulting with his 'Steering
Group' that is not fully known to us). Another one is that some contributors
are taken more seriously or are replied to more often than others.
Contributors meeting predominantly criticism versus meeting predominantly
praise can also reflect a social hierarchy. It can also degenarate into
sub-group creation, where members of one sub-group don't take members of the
other sub-group seriously and only communicate constructively within their
sub-group.
Do you think any intellectual pattern of value (like the MoQ) can do without
supporting social patterns of value?
Yes, people do tend to get heated about things they care about. Some more
than others. Just like children tend to fight with fists rather than words
when they haven't been taught (mainly by example) that there are better
ways. Some more than others.
Anything wrong with (collectively) trying to find ways to prevent overheated
discussion that hurts people? Isn't that part of what 'civilization' is
about? ('Civilization' understood as ongoing process, not as a rigid set of
criteria for who's civilized and who's not.)
You continued:
'Yea. Insulting people is what I'm all about. That's what I've been trying
to say. Once again you see my point exactly. (That was sarcasm)'
No, you do more than insulting people. I have repeatedly expressed that. YOU
suggested that insults are all, by writing that they summarize the point you
are trying to make.
You ended with:
'One should not end a message with "friendly greetings". That's backwards.
It implies an arrival when you are actually leaving. Its like saying hello
as you walk out the door or hang up the phone.'
It's just a translation of a very common formula to end letters in Dutch.
My social patterns of value imply never to start a message without properly
addressing someone and never to end one without siging my (real) name and
some polite phrase (except when I exchange several e-mails within a few
minutes with colleagues at work). Wouldn't it be foolish to be irritated by
or not to tolerate such diversity of communication habits in a
multi-cultural environment like this? Or do you seriously wish to suggest
that European social patterns of value in communication are backwards
compared to American ones?
By the way: could I come and watch your shopping and eating habits sometime?
(-:
I'm actually planning to visit the American North-East next summer with my
family. We are having huge trouble finding ways to travel there that are not
prohibitively expensive for us (not having driving licences, not wanting to
only see big cities and not being exactly rich). Can you advise?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Jun 29 2004 - 14:12:34 BST