From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jul 30 2005 - 18:05:20 BST
Hi Arlo,
> I've moved our discussion over to this new thread.
Good idea. Except the title is a misnomer. It should read "The reality of
the stand-alone genius."
> [Arlo]
> I doubt without that one individual the social layer would have collapsed.
> It may have evolved differently, but I don't think any one individual could
> cause the demise of society.
The brujo didn't cause the demise of the Zuni society. He saved it from
demise. "The brujo had shown he could deal successfully with the one tribe
that could easily wipe them out at any time it wanted to." (Lila, 9)
> Think of the logical background to that
> argument. It would suppose that NO ONE who died in the American Revolution
> or Civil Wars (or any wars) had ANYTHING to contribue to our cultural
> evolution (since we surely evolved to where we are without them). Aren't we
> lucky that all the crucial individuals we needed were never killed in wars
> or accidents, and where there at just the right time to instigate
> evolution, and that the only people who were killed were ones we didn't
> need anyways.
Methinks your logic has the flavor of swiss cheese. Anyone of those
individuals who were killed might have had a significant effect on our
evolution. Who can say otherwise? Surely what we find ourselves evolved to
today is not the best of all possible worlds, as you and others keep
reminding us of how awful everything is and how we're all doomed unless we
change our ways. :-)
> [Platt]
> Are you saying that names create existence? That form of Idealism is a new
> one on me. If your desert island mother had named you Zog, would you exist?
> Or if she had died giving birth leaving you alone without a name, would you
> not exist, even if for a short time (hopefully to be adopted by apes or
> wolves)?
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, the biological patterns that are my biological body would exist. But
> how would "Arlo" exist? I can name a rock "Bob", but that won't make it an
> intellectual being. But, in order to be an intellectual being (Arlo...
> sometimes...) one has to exist in a semiotic frame of reference. One has to
> have semiotics to define the "I" and "other", to build references from
> which the intellectual level emerges.
If you as a baby are nothing more than a biological being, what would be
morally wrong with killing you like a bug?
> You've mentioned how, in your opinion, Pirsig glorifies the individual by
> talking about "Lila". Now would be a good to repost what underlies his use
> of the name.
I have no problem with acknowledging the vital role society and the mythos
(common knowledge) plays in forming the individual. Nor do I object to the
notion that I'm dependent on others for my survival. I object, however, to
the concept that I'm helpless captive of "what everybody else thinks," and
that no one ever had an original idea in his head.
"Not armies, not nations, have advanced the race; but here and there, in
the course of ages, and individual has stood up and cast his shadow over
the world." -- Edwin Hubbel Chapin. Examples: Jesus, Mohammed, Ghandi,
King, Newton, Einstein, Salk, Beethoven, Monet, etc. -- the list would
fill a book.
As far as Pirsig believing that individuals are delusions, I offer this
rebuttal:
"It's possible to see Lila as something much greater than a customary
sociological or anthropological description would have her be. Lila then
becomes a complex ecology of patterns moving toward Dynamic Quality. Lila
individually, herself, is in an evolutionary battle against the static
patterns of her own life." (Lila, 29)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 19:09:18 BST