From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 06:55:16 BST
Hi Sam (Ham and Paul mentioned) and all,
On 10 Aug 2005 at 19:42, Sam Norton wrote:
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?
msh 08-10-05:
The realm from which ideas emerge is not at all imaginary. Ideas
emerge from cultural interactions between people, not from stand-
alone geniuses. See below...
sam 08-10-05:
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'?
msh 08-10-05:
Nothing. I'm saying there is no reason to believe that a new idea is
unique to one individual, and plenty of reason to believe that so-
called new ideas emerge from cultures like leaves from trees. See
below...
sam 08-10-05:
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 08-10-05:
Then I ask you to consider the following thought experiment, which
I've offered to two or three different listers in an attempt to show
the impossibility of creative thought sans culture. So far, no one
has responded:
Imagine an individual transferred straight from the womb into a
sensory deprivation chamber, to be kept there in total isolation for
21 years. What sort of cognition or reasoning would this individual
be capable of upon release?
The creative imagination of a human being will simply not emerge
without cultural interaction. Let me quote myself: "This is not to
say that the behavior we associate with the presence of consciousness
or mind is forever FIXED by one's cultural environment. People
exposed to different ideas flowing from different cultures will
certainly be changed by such exposure. This is why, I think, it is
important to make available to everyone as wide a variety of
experience and information as possible, so that, as fully-realized
human beings, we might enhance, not hinder, our common evolution
toward Quality."
Earlier, in another thread, Ham asked (of Paul) the question you are
asking now:
ham 7-21-05:
If it is your belief that the individual contributes nothing of his
own to society, how do you explain the intellectual advance of a
culture? Does one simply "tap into" a higher quality intellectual
stratum to form new thoughts? If so, where do you think this stratum
is, and who or what is the source of its intellectual knowledge?
msh butted in 7-21-05:
... it's clear to me that an individual isolated from experience,
including interaction with other human beings, would be a thoughtless
lump of quivering hydrocarbons. No brilliant insights, no great
inventions, no cultural contributions of any kind. Cultures and
civilizations advance, to the extent that they do, by virtue of the
fact that they ARE cultures and civilizations, that is, they are
conglomerations of highly- interactive people, all of whom, in a
moral society, would be capable of making quality decisions based on
input from their environment. The idea of the lone genius working
away in isolation to make the world a better place is pure Randian
fantasy.
msh continues (to sam) 08-10-05:
I'd be interested in your response to what I've said, above.
> 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?
sam 08-10-05:
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.
msh 08-10-05:
How?
sam 08-10-05:
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 08-10-05:
Sure, Dickens had a voice. But, without having read Milton,
Shakespeare, Dryden, Donne, he would have been voiceless. Or, to
extend the idea to film, focusing on France, Renoir (debt to Sacha
Guitry), led to Marcel Carne, then Godard, Truffaut, Chabrol. Or,
start on this side of the Atlantic with Woody Allen building upon
Bergman and Fellini, not to mention Buster Keaton and the Marx
Brothers.
> msh before:
> Well, remain calm. You are being terrified by actions, not ideas.
<snip>
msh 08-10-05:
You snipped the most important part of my response, which explained
why you need not be terrified by mere ideas. So... maybe you should
re-read and respond.
sam 08-10-05:
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?
msh 08-05-05:
I see no reason to say that Islamic terrorists are operating at a
lower level than the Christian (read American and British neo-con)
terrorists who have, so far, killed 100,000 innocents in their
illegal and, I will argue, MOQ-immoral invasion and occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you? I thought our "Understanding Power"
thread had relieved you of that misconception. I'm a little
discouraged, and disappointed.
sam continues 08-10-05:
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.
msh 08-10-05:
An idea without action cannot destroy anything. A free and open and
honest evaluation of all ideas, prior to action, can be the
difference between extinction and survival. Besides...
Which ideology? Which terrorists attacks? I think our conversation
is breaking down here because you assume a "patriotic" distinction
between them and us, and I see no such distinction.
Best,
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
“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. I sat at a table
where were rich food and wine in abundance, and obsequious attendance, but
sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable
board.”
-- Henry David Thoreau, Walden And Civil Disobedience
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 : Thu Aug 11 2005 - 08:24:16 BST