From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 19:42:15 BST
Hi Mark,
Some little things, then a potentially bigger thing.
> msh says:
> I'm arguing against the idea that there is one, individual leader-
> genius responsible for any single cultural advance. So, I have no
> problem with recognizing a potentially "new" idea within a bounded
> environment, though I will continue to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
> know for sure that any idea is original. More important, who cares?
It's possible that at each moment of decision reality splits and a new world
comes into being which pursues the consequences of the alternative
choice(s). But it's not something I spend much time thinking about. What is
the point of retaining the conceptual possibility of an idea being
reproduced in some more-or-less imaginary realm elsewhere?
If you accept that - within the bounded environment, ie our lives - there is
the possibility of something 'new' coming in, what's wrong with saying that
this is an 'original idea'?
Now, where you talk about being responsible for a cultural advance I'm more
sympathetic, because the individual can't do anything without the response
of the group. So I'm happy to say that cultural advance is the
responsibility - by definition - of the culture. But I think individuals
have a role to play in that, and coming up with good, original ideas, can
help.
> msh:
> I don't see how. We have no evidence of the sun not rising. We have
> plenty of evidence indicating that ideas come out of cultures the way
> leaves come out of trees. And that different culture-trees
> simultaneously produce identical idea-leaves.
I would dispute that 'ideas come out of cultures'.
> msh:
> I'm saying no individual is a stand-alone genius. I'm also saying
> that it is possible, I suppose, for there to be an original idea,
> (emerging from a whole history of preceding ideas) but that there is
> no reason to suppose that the new idea is unique to one person. And
> no way to prove it. And, even if we could prove it, what's the point
> in doing so, other than to satisfy some childish longing for
> intellectual heroes?
Well, if we discount the 'other worlds' possibilities, it seems to me
perfectly plausible that we could demonstrate that a particular idea is
unique to one person. But it's your language about the 'childish longing for
intellectual heroes' that intrigues me. I think there is something here
which is part of a network of fundamental beliefs where we profoundly differ
(and which probably underlie our political differences). I also suspect that
there are inheritances from Christian faith embedded in my perspective.
Let me come at this from a different angle. Do you think there is such a
thing as an 'authorial voice'? Eg that Dickens writes in a particular style,
with particular concerns. Parallel to the French idea of 'auteur' in film.
> msh:
> Well, remain calm. You are being terrified by actions, not ideas.
<snip>
Seems to me that entering the arena of rational discussion is itself an
acceptance of an idea, and what we are facing is precisely an ideology which
rejects that - and takes violent steps, precisely in pursuit of a set of
ideas. Or do you think that the Qutbists are operating at the social level?
In which case, I think I have every justification for being frightened of
the idea that it is legitimate for an idea to kill a society. That's exactly
what's at issue, so it seems to me, and what justifies the ideologists in
their terrorist acts.
Sam
Those who were thrown to the lions were not reading "Thomas" or Q or the
"Gospel of Mary." They were reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the
rest...
(Tom Wright)
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 10 2005 - 20:30:16 BST