From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Aug 03 2005 - 15:20:51 BST
Hi Scott, and all,
On 2 Aug 2005 at 14:17, Scott Roberts wrote:
Scott:
Correct -- I didn't elaborate, but I don't think I misinterpreted.
One often sees the phrase "wu wei" as "wei wu wei", that is, action
through non-action, hence my first statement above: "If we actually
did do nothing, things would not stay just the way they are." We are
all after the same thing, more or less: an end to oppression,
freedom, etc. The difference is that the Taoist says that you don't
get there by fighting for these goals. That is playing the game
according to the rules set by society, and all that is likely to do
is shift from one oppressor to another. Instead, the first step is to
recognize that we are, each of us, the cause of our problem, in that
we are incapable of acting spontaneously in accordance with Quality.
Religions recognize this: Christians call it original sin, Buddhists
call it avidya (ignorance), Vedantists call it maya. Unless and until
we face up to this, our socially-inspired solutions won't work,
whether those of Chomsky or those of Milton Friedman. Giants cannot
be defeated on their own terms.
msh 08-03-05:
But the simple fact is that Giants can and have been defeated on
their own terms. Slavery was abolished. Many of the oppressive
tendencies of Big Business were dramatically curbed (temporarily, at
least) during the 30's, 40's, 50's. The Civil Rights movement. The
Anti-war movements of the 60's and 70's. The feminist movement.
Ecological movements. It's just a mistake to claim that social
progress cannot result from activism, or that social change means
only shifting one opressor for another.
In fact, when he dismisses the movements of the 60's as spontaneous
reactions against the social AND intellectual levels, Pirsig is
simply WRONG, or guilty of immense oversimplification. The fact that
many people on this list keep repeating his view is a little
unsettling. There was nothing spontaneous or anti-intellectual about
any of the movements I mentioned above; nor is there anything anti-
intellectual about the current movements against so called "free
trade" globilization efforts, and against the current war in Iraq.
scott:
So the second step is, as I said to Sam in the "how do intellectual
patterns respond to Quality" thread, self-observation and
self-deconstruction. One thing one cannot do, given our current
state, is "act spontaneously". This was a common error of the hippies
(and so they mistook the biological for the spontaneous), as Pirsig
points out.
msh 8-03-05:
See what I mean? See above.
scott:
So wei wu wei is the desideratum, and the means to it is to exercise
the intellect on oneself. As Nietzsche put it, it is not a question
of having the courage of one's convictions, but of having the courage
to attack one's convictions.
msh 8-03-05:
Of course, attack (criticise) one's convictions. This doesn't mean
destroy them. That would be nihilism, and Ham would have his case
against the MOQ and the Tao.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com 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 : Wed Aug 03 2005 - 20:53:26 BST