Lakoff makes more sense if you add the concept of freely chosen obligations versus enforced obligations - I forget the precise terminology. The latter means that you do what you do because you must - it's your duty as whatever your role is. Dharma, in the Hindu usage. The former is, you freely choose your obligations and choose to remain faithful to them.
People who believe in the chosen obligations ask "How can you ever trust someone forced into staying with you/taking care of Mom/whatever? Being enslaved, won't the resent it and do as little as possible or get petty revenge?" People who believe in forced obligations can't imagine being able to ever trust any of the chosen-obligation people. After all, didn't they get into their marriage, role, or whatever, on a *whim*? And won't they walk out of it just as freely? The mapping onto Lakoff is fairly obvious. And let me add that the forced-obligation people tend to be hard-right and the chosen-obligation people to be moderate-to-hard left. The reason is that if the government takes over the obligations, doesn't that get people off the hook and allow them to skip out on doing their bounden duty? There was a long discussion of this on Ozarque's Journal (lj) some time ago. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ "Now is the winter of our discontent...." >From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <brin-l@mccmedia.com> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> >Subject: Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism >Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:55:40 -0800 > >On Dec 5, 2007 11:45 AM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more > > progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political > > spectrum. > > > >I haven't seen Jerry in a long time, but I never would have guessed that he >was ever progressive. The more times I ran into him, the less I could >stand >reading anything he wrote... Aside from his grandiosity and misbehavior >(don't ask, I won't gossip) I'd hear it all in his voice, which could ruin >anything. > > > > > i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the >religious > > right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians >support > > bush when they are victims of his economic policies... > > >George Lakoff has an explanation and although I'm not sure it is >politically >useful, it makes a lot of sense to me. "Moral Politics" is his book that >explains it in depth. The short version is that the right, especially the >fundamentalist right-wingers, appeal to a "stern father" concept that all >of >us have and use to one extent or another. The alternative is to invoke our >concept of nurturing parents, Lakoff argues. But it's sort of like Freud; >the model works but doesn't seem to be practical. > > > > > i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox. that >i > > don't understand, but we are still friends. if you are raised in a >faith, > > you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to >rationalize > > your faith... perhaps there is a middle ground? > > > >In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-) > >Nick > >-- >Nick Arnett >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Messages: 408-904-7198 >_______________________________________________ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
