Hi Arlo, I am patient, and I will continue to explain these things to you as best I can. I am simply presenting my opinion, so bear with me if I seem exasperated.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:41 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark] > My point was that there are other ways to see Freedom apart from you static > Western representation of such. > > [Arlo] > The desperate response of "you're static". Been expecting that. Theories of > agency/structure derive more from Russian thought than Euro-American > histories. > FYI. [Mark] OK, was simply bringing in a bit of Pirsig. I suppose some find him desperate (at least I so sometimes) it must be hard to try to explain all these things that are ineffible. All I can say is you are presenting phenomena from the Social level, that is the integrated "group think" that seem to dominate many. There is no problem with this, I am just using a knife to separate the levels. > > [Mark] > This is quite true, which relegates static quality to the Social Level, and > not > to the personal or biological level. > > [Arlo] > This makes no sense. Static quality is defined as I/B/S/I patterns of value. [Mark] Hmmm... Now that is interesting. I'll take the cheeseburger pattern. Is that also not available? No seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am a simple man. I will check that stuff out. > > [Mark] > You are mixing up your levels when you speak of freedom. > > [Arlo] > I don't think of "levels" at all when I speak of "freedom", you either don't > read or don't understand what I write. Whether this is deliberate or not, I > can > only guess. Given that its a continual problem with you, I'm leaning towards > deliberate. [Mark] I beg to differ. The way you present freedom is through a static representation of such. I think you fully understand this. This is like trying to represent the ocean with a fish bowl. It is just plain incomplete and uninformative. How is it that you claim that a road can bring both freedom and lack of freedom? Does this really make any sense to you? It just seems like you are playing with words. Freedom comes first, then the road. It cannot be the other way around. When we place more importance on words than what they represent, this is part of the Social Level. It has to be since we exchange socially through words. I do not know how to be any more clear than that. I am certainly not trying to deliberately annoy you. I am simply trying to explain something to you. I could start at the beginning as to what the levels represent, but I am sure I would lose your interest, since I often seem to not make much sense in a Western way. So, instead I will try simple logic. > > [Mark] > I suppose you consider a non-feral human to be something different than what > we > are as human. > > [Arlo] > I'd consider that it shares similar biological structures (patterns), and > hence > abilities derived exclusively from biology (ability to sense heat, to smell > scents, to run, to jump, to recoil in fear at loud noises, to salivate, etc.) > but apart from that there would no further similarity. > > What "we are as human" is not defined, exclusively, by our biology, but by our > social and intellectual makeup as well. [Mark] Yes, I agree with that. Now how about our individual consciousness that is free from the Social Level? What do you think that is like? Can you imagine such a thing? It is possible to tease apart the levels. This is why there are represented as distinct levels to begin with. I do not think you would disagree with that. Obviously the Social Level is for Society. This is done with words and other shared (static) tools. Our bodies live within the biological level (for lack of a better term), and this includes our individual (not social) consciousness. Our thoughts are a function of brain activity, this is physical. Beneath that we have another consciousness that makes us unique. There are distinct levels each with their own purpose. Certainly they intertwine, but it should not be a problem separating them if we understand them. > > [Mark] > Please try not to mix up your levels. > > [Arlo] > An empty accusation, but I see what you are trying to accomplish with such > nonsense. [Mark] OK, my bad, I apologize for that. Just take it as a suggestion from a friend. I am certainly not an enemy since we both have the same goal in this forum. > > [Mark] > Yes, we can dismiss them with a blink of an eye. > > [Arlo] > On your way home tonight, dismiss the "roads" with a blink of you eye, tell me > if you agency in movement and travel does not decrease as a result. [Mark] I do this all the time, I do not live in the "road level". You don't either, you just don't realize this (yet). I am not my agency in movement. This is simple Zen. This is what Pirsig is talking about. He even helped set up a Buddhist temple. Why do you think he sets up these levels to begin with if it is not to provide some insight into the net total of Quality? He didn't just make these things up to be provocative. They have real meaning which can be found. One of those meanings is freedom. > > [Mark] > It would all depend on the intrusion of the government (Social Level) on our > personal (biological) level. > > [Arlo] > This makes no sense. I am sorry, though, that your "personal level" is > biological. Some of us are much more than that. [Mark] Well, if you are somehow divine, then I apologize. I often argue with Ham who believes we are somehow right next to God in our importance. Being the biological level is not demeaning, it is exalting. I cannot think of anything better. But, perhaps you are right, you may be something more than that. But tell me, what is that exactly? If you need more importance, just raise the world around you to your level. It does not make sense to put it down to some level. You have to live here, after all. It may provide great meaning and peace. > > [Mark] > Governing is a Social aspect, not to be confused with individual freedom. > > [Arlo] > Individual freedoms increase as a result of social regulations on behavior. > People in governed societies enjoy far more freedoms than people living in > anarchy. This is not to say that all restrictions are good, or that there is a > not where too much interference diminishes human agency. The key is finding > the > balance where you are more free than states of anarchy or states of despotism > would put you. [Mark] Yes, we are speaking of two different types of freedom. You are speaking of Social Freedom which is imparted through society. This is not individual freedom, that can be had in a four by four room. We have restrictions all around us, we got to keep breathing, and eating, and sometimes I need to pee like a race horse. If you think about it we live in a very narrow range of possibilities in terms of our bodies.. I we feel trapped by what we "have" to do, then it can be a very depressing life. If we feel that we need help from others to be free, then that is even worse (imo). This is not what I am talking about, which is why I use the levels to explain this. Again, you are speaking of two social phenomena with anarchy and despotism. Such freedom is some kind of rhetorical device within a society. That is not what freedom I am talking about. The freedom I am speaking of is dynamic, not static. These forms of society are static qualities that we formulate to provide some kind of meaning to the social level. But, I will agree with you that balance is very important. If we want to get to the heart of MoQ, then we have to see static quality for what it is, and not be blinded by it, or feel that we are subjected to it. > > Well, I've read Archer/Giddens/Parker/Bourdieu and I thought the majority of > information on Wikipedia regarding their theories was accurate enough to give > you place to start. Forget it then, if you are interested pick up these > authors' books and start there. [Mark] OK, those names are new to me, I will check the library. I have so much to learn. Thanks for the suggestions. I just have this thing about Wiki, since I was paying attention when it started. It was a joke back then, and is still a joke now. It is abused by many, and trusted by far too many. In my opinion I would rather quote a comic book. But, yeah, I know, that's just me. I agree, it can be a good place to start. Just do not trust the science without verification and confirmation. As a scientist I know that many things are extremely faulty there. Stick to peer reviewed stuff, even though that is also sometimes "group thought" gone awry. What? Opinionated? Who me? > Cheers, Mark > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
