From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 03:06:02 GMT
Pirsig writes (again in Lila's Child): "I believe there are a number of
philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand's "Objectivism," that call the "I" or
"individual" the central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do
scientists."
The college I attended was something of an Ayn Rand cult and I was something
of a member for a brief period. She's the most often cited major influence
and her ATLAS SHRUGGED is, in terms of copies sold, second only to the
bible. She's big in the USA. And I dare say her influence is felt in these
discussions too. Several times the "individual" or "individuality" has been
put forward as the most evolved thing, as the defining feature of the fourth
level. And although I'm sure she borrowed the notion from earlier thinkers,
she's the one who popularized the idea that the struggle between communism
and capitalism was a struggle between collectivism and individualism. This
idea has transmorphed into this forum to construe the social level as
collective and the intellectual level as individualistic. But this bares
little resembleance to the MOQ's explanation of those ideologies or anything
else in the MOQ. Its just Ayn Rand dressed up in Pirsig's clothes. The
social and intellectual are the good and the true, not the collective and
the individualistic.
Let me take a moment here to be more careful. There is a distinction to be
made between the two, but it doesn't have anything to do with defining
Pirsig's levels. It only has to do with what sort of society, what kind of
social structure a particular culture employs. If you live in a hunter
gatherer tribe of the forests, one good kill by one good hunter can make or
break the whole tribe. The individual plays a vital role and is honored for
such. But if you live is a complex agrarian society with strict caste rules,
such as ancient Egypt or Babylon, the lone wolf type will only be seen as a
threat and honor goes to those who go along. My point? The difference
between collectivity and individuality is one of culture. They're both valid
sets of social values. I'm sure every culture holds them both in their own
kind of balancing tension. Its an interesting thing to ponder, but is
unrelated to distinguishing the levels of the MOQ.
Not too long ago I'd complained about an essay that compared Ayn Rand and
the MOQ, an essay so dumb it made me blush and turned me off MOQ essays in
general. So I can't tell you how happy I am to hear Pirsig say her
"philosophic system" is an illusion according to both Buddhists and
scientists. I'm glad to see that Pirsig has explicitly distanced his MOQ
from her take on things. Not only do they have different conceptions of the
self, they have different conceptions of society. Ayn Rand says there is no
such thing as society, only individuals. How unPirsigian is that? Very! One
of his biggest complaints about SOM is that it fails to recognize social
values as unreal or unimportant and surely Ms. Rand's philosophy is a prime
example of this very defect.
Thanks.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 17 2002 - 03:06:05 GMT