XCTO THANKS DAVID B. FOR HIS DEFINITION ON SOCIAL DARWINISM AND WOULD LIKE TO
POSIT HIS IDEAS OF MYTHOS AND THE GIANT TO SAY THAT MONEY IS NOT THE BASIC
UNIT OF THE SOCIAL LEVEL.
In a message dated 12/11/99 1:35:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org writes:
> Subj: MD Slaying the dragon.
> Roger asks what I mean by "unmoderated Social Darwinism". By
> "unmoderated" I mean simply unmodified, unmittigated, unaltered or pure.
> I mean Social Darwinism just as it is, without any correctives. There
> are many thousands of books about Social Darwinism itself, and even more
> opinions about it, but I think its safe to say that it is essentially a
> combination of the Protestant idea that wealth = virtue and the
> Darwinist idea that winners win through ruthless agression. Its the law
> of the jungle applied to economics. And it's conception of the jungle's
> law is overly influenced by the Victorian values of Darwin's world. A
> lot of people don't realize that savage competition in the workplace was
> seen as some kind of natural or "divine" order even before his theory of
> biological evolution was formulated. Most folks imagine that these
> social theories were based on Darwin's discoveries. But its the other
> way around. Darwin's data was filtered through his culture and language,
> unconsciously and otherwise. Everyone knows what it was like in those
> days, thanks to Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo and others. It was a time
> of Kings, colonialism and there was only a tiny middle class. Scrooge is
> the ultimate Social Darwinist, as in "Tiny Tim should just die and his
> father's poverty is due to his moral laxity". Its not the puny wages he
> recieves from Scrooge, oh no, it is GOD that has seen fit to impoverish
> the family. (Merry Christmas, by the way.) I think historians refer to
> it as "prosperity theology".
>
> As Woody Allen says, "It's worse than dog eat dog these days, its dog
> doesn't return other dog's phone calls".
>
Xcto: thanks for the perspective, it was welcome and necessary for us to
really discuss this topic.
> ****************************************************************
>
> But more to the point about money and the MOQ... In chapter 17, where
> Pirsig is talking about the "Giant", which is also described as the
> "giant octopus" that he'd seen in his nightmares throughout his life. He
> writes...
>
> "He had come to think of dreams as Dynamic perceptions of reality. They
> were suppressed and filtered out of consciousness by conventional
> patterns of static social and intellectual order but they revealed a
> primary truth: a value truth. The static patterns of the dreams were
> false but the underlying values that produced the patterns were true.
> In static reality there is no octopus coming to squeeze us to death, no
> giant that is going to devour us and digest us and turn us into a part
> of its own body so that it can grow stronger and stronger while we are
> dissolved and lost into nothingness. But in Dynamic reality?"
>
> Forgive my pretentiousness, but I think the assertion that "dreams are
> Dynamic perceptions of reality" is extremely profound. I also think its
> quite true. Pirsig isn't the only one who has dreamed of giant monsters.
> In fact, if Jung and Campbell are right, and I certainly think they are,
> we ALL dream this dream one way or another. These dreams are the basis
> of our myths and legends, or rather they come from the same place.
> Neither dreams nor myths are true in the literal sense, but Dynamically
> they are true as true can be. The "truth" of the story of David and
> Goliath is a Dynamic one, its not an historical truth. The stories of
> knights who slay dragons is another version of the dreams Pirsig had.
> And the great political satirist Jonathan Swift captured this truth
> beautifully in Gulliver's Travels.
>
The only point I would like to say is that our dreams do NOT create the basis
of our dreams and legends. It is actually the otherway around. Our myths
create our dreams, our dynamic mythos. I think the MOQ actually supports the
idea that "man does not make God, but God makes men [what they are]". I'm
not trying to support any particular religious idea, but more of taking the
ideas of Campbell and others leads me to believe in the power of the mythos.
Reread the rest of this post and maybe you will see the mythos creating man a
bit more.
> And what does it say in the book of Revelations? No man shall be able to
> buy or sell without the mark of the BEAST? Demons, dragons, beasts,
> devils, octopi, the clashing rocks, the troll that gaurds the bridge, it
> doesn't really matter what form this image takes. The Dynamic truth is
> still the same inspite of the various images used to express it. If Jung
> and Campbell are right, every person AND EVERY CULTURE has this same
> dream. The only difference is the static forms of expression. Slaying
> the dragon is just one of the steps one must take to complete the hero's
> journey. The murderous "Giant" is really just one part of a much larger
> dream, one with a more complete Dynamic truth. You could say that the
> hero's journey is THEE dream. It is a Dynamic blueprint for
> transcendence, its a Dynamic roadmap of the journey to mysticism and
> back again. Not every hero tale ends well. Sometimes the knight is
> killed. Sometimes he refuses the call to adventure and never even
> confronts the dragon.Sometimes the hero is dragged kicking and
> screaming, but manages to succeed anyway. Sometimes the dragon is tamed
> instead of killed, or in other versions the dragon is discovered to be
> friendly and humane, a misunderstood creature in need of love. In any
> cas, it must be faced before the journey can be fulfilled. One can think
> of theis hero's journey as a Dynamic version of Maslow's hierarchy of
> needs, and the giant monsters represent one of the obstacles to
> self-actualization. See?
>
> "Here up in the sky above him right now were the heads of the
> copporation that had prompted the chemistry professor to make that talk
> to his fraternity brothers so many years ago. (He had scolded them for
> selling out.) This was the brain center of that corporate network,
> surrounded by other networks: financial networks, information networks,
> electronic transmission networks. That's what all those tiny bocies
> weere doin up there suspended so many hundreds of feet up in the sky.
> Participating in the Giant."
> "So Phaedrus had been right in running then. But now - funny thought -
> this was actually his home. All his income came form here. His only
> fixed address now was right here - his publisher's address on Madison
> Avenue. He was as much a part of the Giant as anyone else."
>
> For as long as there have been cities, the world has been run by swords
> and money. That's why the dream is so old and pervasive, that's why the
> Dynamic truth of our struggle against the Giant is so persistent. This
> is a psychological, spiritual, and political struggle all at once. The
> successful hero returns home, just as Pirsig does. It is the same world
> he left, and yet it is transformed. Now the Giant works for him. He
> doesn't work for the Giant. His participation is now conscious and
> willful, rather than serving as an unknowing slave. The hero has crossed
> the threshold into Dynamic truth and brings it back with him as a gift
> and as encouragement for others to preform the same task for themselves.
> The mystic abandons all static patterns, but not forever. Once he's
> drunk from the holy grail, he sees that returning is the only moral
> choice.
> The dragon is tamed or mastered, rather than killed.
>
> But what does this have to do with money? I think the properity
> theologians are almost totally wrong. Wealth is not a sign of God's
> favor. Status, fame, fortune and authority are the Giant's rewards.
> There are exceptions, but for the most part riches and treasures are
> given to those who best serve the Giant. Camels through the eye of a
> needle, turning over the money tables, consider the lillies, the meek
> shall inherit the earth, blessed are the poor, blah blah blah. I don't
> have to tell anyone these stories. They are in the Bible and in the
> Greek and Roman myths, they're in your dreams and in mine too.
>
> You could take the dragon's side in this struggle. But I think that's
> exactly what the myth of selling your soul to the devil is all about.
> Taking the dragon's side, prior to the journey, is crazy and evil.
> Hitler took the dragon's side. From chapter 22...
>
> "This conflict explains the driving force behind Hitler not as an insane
> search for power but as an all-consuming glorification of social
> authority...."
>
> Godzilla and Puff the magic dragon? Got me there?
>
> DMB
xcto: did you see it?
I believe the mythos is the most basic foundation of the Social Level. The
mythos is the cultural riverbed that our waters flow through and it's static
nature determines many boundaries in which we can dynamically change without
creating chaos for ourselves. The most important part though, is how our
Intellect resides in this Social level in such a way that is controls it but
is dependent on it; the dynamic part of the Intellect could not survive
without the Social level's stability (Maslow).
But these pre-historical myths do not tell us the Moral Laws which the social
level demands, the 'Thou Shalts' (as in Thou Shalt Not Kill) I guess you
would say. When you think about it, I guess you must say that the 'Thou
Shalts' are the static Intellectual representations of the Moral Laws which
the Social level has taken as its Principles (the basic unit of my
Intellectual Level (MOxcto until more people agree with me)). Thus, the
Moral Laws do not change the mythos, but are created by a social group and
creates a different myth that is a contains the shared mythos plus a series
of laws and culture that are special to that group.
Now of course, this directly attacks many people's idea of the
Social/Intellectual relationship, but this is as good as a time to argue it
out as any.
The point here is to show that the Giant is really the creation of a social
groups myth, specifically western civilization. The Giant's ability to
gather power is it's most important reason that it is so predominant today.
Money is a unit of value, but to me the Social Level's basic unit is power
(Control). Control of property, instinct, desire, people, ideas. These are
the static activites of the Social level. Today, money is obvious the
quickest way to power, but the Celebrity factor shows you don't mean money to
have Control(though money often is the result of celebrity control).
But the MOQ clearly states that the western civilization is the most moral
view because of the results; the most dynamic activity is the results of the
western social systems. Money is a tool of very dynamic value. But in the
same way that the dynamic Intellect can degenerate our society, Money can do
it too. The same can be said of Guns.
What does the MOQ say about gun control?
What do you say of my ideas?
xcto
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:16 BST