ARLO: Individuality is mostly a thing created by the 4th. Level - that is, the distinction between subject and object. That distinction that the MOQ declares to be wrong. Now, today and in the nearest past (particularly in America I'd say) there has been this sanctification of the individual (of the subject) in general, something that comes from the SOM - of this there can be little doubt. The way I see it though, Is that this way of hinking - originated from the 4th level, later superimposed upon and formed social patterns to fit itself - so now there is a social value pattern that says the individual is The Highest And Best.
Regards Chris [Ian] > "Arlo denies the individual self" is slanderous rhetortic, and a gross > distortion of anything he does actually say. Par for the course in that > respect. > > [Arlo] > It's all I really expect, Ian. As you've said, this is an old > conversation, and > it plays out the same each time. They don't really care what I say, of > course, > as long as I'm doing anything but wagging my dick about the Lone Wonderous > Individual I get the same schtick retorts about "denying the individual" > or any > such bunk as we've seen (again) lately. And, what you've pointed out, is > that > I am doing little more than quoting Pirisig. Maybe combining a few quotes, > and > then offering the insights of others who've also articulated the belief > that > the "mind originates out of society". > > Indeed, if this is Pirsig's view (it is), and others have written > similarly, > one would think those who pretend to be interested in the MOQ would be at > the > very least curious as to how others have articulated this dynamic. And of > those > I mention (Vygostsky, Bakhtin and of course Archer and Giddens), are ones > were > I find exceptional convergence between what Pirsig had said and what these > people are writing. Indeed, with Bourdieu there is a strong parallel with > Pirsig's central static-Dynamic differentiation. And since Bourdieu is > concerned with social level beings and the formation of mind, one would > think > there would be interest here, rather than the ridiculous Limbaughian > tactics we > see above. > > But, as you say, par for the course. Think we'll ever see Platt answer the > simple question about when societies existed but not individuals? I don't. > And > again, that would be par for the course. > > Looking forward to your thoughts on my ideas about the "carbon property" > of the > biological and social levels. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
