don't quite agree platt, first i don't see it as a fight. if you fight the giant you lose evry time. also the 'public good' has definite intellectual level overtones. it didn't really exist until the welfare state kicked in properly with the atley gov in england post ww2. the idea of the public good opposes a blind obeisance to a master. it gives some sort of rationale for obeying the law.
the giant for us now is the corporation and its ideological underpinnings. the corp is another morph of historical church and state structures. there is no fundamental ideological diff. just as science and christianity are, for the most part running the same proto-christian neo-platonic program (and hence why armchair philosophers like dennett and dawkins can't see they are caught in a fight with themselves) you can't be an individual, a free individual, and be under hierarchical control...that is obvious. and yet nearly everyone has a boss - a naked example of domination. so - we are still, as a culture, primarily under social control. fascism won the war and it is still holding on (though if you look carefully you can see its knuckles are white). the lure of the giant is money. it is simple. money is the drug we are hooked on and it keeps us down - it keeps us running on the spot, chasing our tails etc etc. it is the trick. if we start to value other qualities above money, eg freedom, then we start to disengage from the matrix and we are on the road to autonomy. if you already have a lot of money - like many people - freedom is easier to attain, becasue you don't have to submit to make more. if you have a shitload of money then you are obligated to help others free themselves. money is neither good nor bad intrinsically - it is just the bait man. this is why self-sufficiency - producing one's own food, energy directly etc - is the new mode of existence. money becomes less important if you have enough to live on and can trade/share with others of a similar mindset. of course it is also the only way to stop humanity rendering the planet uninhabitable. cheers gav --- On Mon, 7/7/08, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Static Self > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: Monday, 7 July, 2008, 10:45 PM > Exactly why I consider the intellectual level to be the > individual level. It > holds high the value of the individual by fighting the > efforts of the > collectivist social level to dominate and put everyone in > the service of the > Giant, i.e., the "public good.". > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:21 AM, gav > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the individual is borne of the intellectual level - it > is an idea. > > the idea of oneself as an autonomous agent evolves > from and opposes the > > purely social (bicameral?) level of > consciousness....which operates by the > > control of the collective via a deity, king etc. > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/7/08, david buchanan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: david buchanan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: [MD] Static Self > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Received: Monday, 7 July, 2008, 5:46 AM > > > Ham said to Craig and Marsha: > > > Pirsig...has put man in a cosmic "vat" > by denying > > > him the autonomy of free choice and > self-determination. > > > ...the MoQist view of what man is -- not an > entity, not a > > > self, not even a proprietary subject, but > patterns of value > > > in a field of quality. There is no "free > agency" > > > in such a construct because the "field" > itself is > > > the operand of the patterns. The static patterns, > in other > > > words, are programmed by DQ. > > > > > > "To the extent that one's behavior is > controlled > > > by static patterns of quality it is without > choice. But to > > > the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, > which is > > > undefinable, one's behavior is free." > (Robert > > > Pirsig in Lila) > > > > > > Ham continued: > > > I've been unable to find any references to > > > individuality, individualism, individual freedom, > > > self-determination, proprietary awareness, or > personal > > > autonomy. Instead, in all these quotes citing > > > "subjects", "mind", > "life", > > > and "free", there is the presumption of > a > > > collective consciousness being dominated or > controlled by > > > DQ. > > > Unless you can provide a statement by the author > supporting > > > the individual as the conscious locus of > existential reality > > > or the agent of value in the world, I don't > see how you > > > can refute my "self in a vat" > characterization of > > > his philosophy > > > > > > dmb says: > > > There are no supporting references to > individualism and > > > there is no self in a vat either. As I've > tried to > > > explain once or twice already, the MOQ rejects > some basic > > > metaphysical assumptions but you're reading > the MOQ as > > > if those assumptions still figured into what > Pirsig is > > > saying. Like many philosophers over the last > century or so, > > > he rejects the assumptions of subject-object > metaphysics, > > > which is known around here as "SOM". > Your > > > questions clearly emphasize the individual's > awareness, > > > personal autonomy and the like. There is a common > sense > > > level in which these concepts make a great deal > of sense, > > > but here we are talking about a philosophy that > rejects a > > > lot of the traditional ideas about subjectivity > and > > > objectivity. Listening to you and Marsha discuss > the matter > > > is like listening to Ayn Rand trying to convince > a Buddhist > > > monk to be more selfish. But the difference is > not really > > > that stark. We don't need to go East to see > what this > > > rejection looks like or what it means. Pirs > > > ig's pragmatism and radical empiricism are > enough. In > > > fact, you could go back 100 years and find it in > the work > > > of Dewey and James. They rejected SOM, adopted > radical > > > empiricism and did so in plain english. John > Stuhr explains > > > it pretty well in his introduction to Dewey. > Stuhr is the > > > editor of an anthology that was assigned reading > in a grad > > > school course on pragmatism. As I understand it, > every > > > thing he says here about Dewey could also be said > of > > > Pirsig, James and other classical pragmatists. He > says,... > > > > > > "At the outset, it is vital to distinguish > Dewey's > > > theory of experience and his 'empiricism' > from the > > > philosophical traditions and theories which he > seeks to > > > overcome and abandon. Dewey's major > criticisms of > > > traditional empiricism are neatly summarized in > 'The > > > Need for a Recovery of Philosophy". Here > Dewey rejects > > > the traditional view of experience as something > subjective > > > and psychical, as 'particularistic' or > composed of > > > discrete sense data assembled by the > understanding, as > > > primarily an affair of knowing, as directed > primarily at > > > the past, and as something separate from and > opposed to > > > thought. > > > How, then, does Dewey positively characterize > experience? > > > In the beginning to understand his view, it > cannot be > > > overemphasized that Dewey is not using the word > > > 'experience' in its conventional sense. > For Dewey, > > > experience is not to be understood in terms of > the > > > experiencING subject, or as the interaction of a > subject > > > and object that exist separate from the > interaction. > > > Instead, Dewey's view is radically empirical: > > > experience is an activity in which subject and > object are > > > unified and CONSTITUTED as partial features and > relations > > > within this ongoing, unanalyzed unity. Dewey > warns us not > > > to misconstrue aspects of this unified > experience-activity: > > > distinctions made in reflection. If we don > confuse them, we > > > invent the philosophical problem of how to get > them > > > together. > > > The error of materialists and idealists alike - > the error > > > of conferring existential status upon the > products of > > > reflection - is the result of neglect of the > context of > > > reflection on experience." > > > > > > dmb continues: > > > In addition to those passages where Pirsig simply > declares > > > his MOQ to be a form of pragmatism and radical > empiricism, > > > there is also this explanation about the limits > of > > > traditional empiricism, which assumes SOM and > limits > > > experience to what can be known through the five > sense > > > organs and which is known as sensory empiricism. > > > > > > "The MOQ RESTATES the empirical basis of > logical > > > positivism with more precision, more > inclusiveness, more > > > explanatory power than it has previously had. It > says that > > > values are not outside of the experience that > logical > > > positivism limits itself to. They are the ESSENCE > of this > > > experience. Values are MORE empirical, in fact, > than > > > subjects and objects. (Hot stove example is here) > ...This > > > value is more immediate, more directly sensed > than any > > > 'self' or any 'object' to which > it might > > > later be assigned. ..It is the primary empirical > reality > > > from which such things as stoves and heat and > oaths and > > > self are latter intellectually constructed. Onces > this > > > primary relationship is cleared up an awful lot > of > > > mysteries get solved. The reason values seem so > > > woolly-headed to empiricists is that empiricists > keep > > > trying to assign them to subjects or objects. You > can't > > > do it. You get all mixed up because values > don't belong > > > to either group. They are a separate category all > their own > > > ..but showing > > > that, of course, is a very big job..." > (Lila 66-7, > > > near the end of chapter 5) > > > > > > dmb continues" > > > Compare Dewey's phrases "distinctions > made in > > > reflection" and "products of > reflection" > > > with Pirsig's notion of things as > "intellectually > > > constructed". Compare Dewey's > "unanalyzed > > > unity" with Pirsigian notions like > "indefinable > > > quality", "pre-intellectual > experience" or > > > "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum". > These are > > > ways of talking about the static/dynamic split, > where the > > > distinctions, reflections and intellectual > constructions > > > are all static while the primary reality is > dynamic and > > > prior to all that. More to the point for our > purposes here, > > > both of them are trying to explain how the > individual > > > subject is derived from experience rather than > the locus of > > > experience. They both insist than this is a case > of giving > > > existential status to an idea, of treating a > concept about > > > or interpretation of experience as if it were the > cause of > > > experience, the pre-requisites of experience. It > is in this > > > sense that they reject the the subjective self > and objective > > > reality. Like I said, these > > > are perfectly fine AS CONCEPTS. But when we > take them as > > > metaphysical assumptions, we can get very > confused, > > > especially if we read Dewey, James or Pirsig as > if they > > > hadn't abandoned those assumptions. > > > > > > I sincerely hope that helps. > > > dmb > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Making the world a better place one message at a > time. > > > > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace > > > 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/ > > > > > > Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online > experience. > > www.yahoo7.com.au > > 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/ > > > 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/ Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au 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/
