--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This New Yorker article by David Denby has bearing > on some of the earlier > discussions on philosophy and the enlightenment.
Very interesting, Doug. I'm not without my own inconsistencies in these matters. For example, while it's blatantly obvious that freedom to know and speak are NOT "inalienable" or self-evident... indeed they seem to have been repressed in nearly all human cultures as almost a reflex of human nature... it seems clear that we can only get their pragmatic benefits if we hypnotize ourselves to defend those freedoms AS IF they were natural and self-evident and inalienable. And while it seems strange for me to passionately defend these freedoms for their "pragmatic" benefits, they are simply the only way that has ever been found to overcome rationalization and self-deception, leading to oppression and disastrous mistakes in statecraft. Even if freedom were not also "good" as well as a chief source of happiness, those pragmatic reasons would be enough in themselves. I go into this elsewhere. For a rather intense look at how "truth" is determined in science, democracy, courts and markets, see the lead article in the American Bar Association's Journal on Dispute Resolution (Ohio State University), v.15, N.3, pp 597-618, Aug. 2000, "Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competition for Society's Benefit." or at: http://www.davidbrin.com/disputationarticle1.html The four Accountability Arenas have worked so vastly better at creating human wealth, happiness and advancement than ANY platonic or romantic essences, that it seems clear that separation of church and state is not merely a matter of promoting tolerance. It is fundamental to humanity's hope for survival. Because the romantics will use any excuse, any dogma or ideology or religious fanaticism that might enable them to once again grab hold of power. But they had their chance. 6,000+ years of dogmas and kings and priests and wizards and bullies and incantations and immolations and auto-da-fe. They had all that time, in every culture on Earth. And while a few pretty pyramids and sculptures and poems resulted, there was never a hint of real human progress till we moderns shrugged free of their obsessive need to rant and tyrannize us. They are frantic now. They can sense that just a few decades from now there will be no turning back. Even if there's no "singularity", mass education and technological advancement will soon spread worldwide. Women will be equals and control their own lives. The vastness and age and ongoing nature of God's handiwork will be apparent and versions of Him that demand quivering adherence to narrow dogma will fade away. The memes want to defend themselves. Hence the alliance between aristocratic kleptocrats, apocalypts, muslim fanatics and those weird neoplatonist/jingoist nerds. W is right when he says "They hate our freedom." Only "they" includes him and all of those around him. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
