From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Aug 26 2005 - 19:33:31 BST
Hello JC --
(May I call you 'Jay', or do you have a real name?)
On 8/26 you commented on my critique of LILA Chpt. 17 as follows:
> Of course you can't have a society without individuals.
> Culture advances when communities of individuals adopt changes that
> seem good to them, and then spread those changes throughout the
> populace using art and rhetoric.
You concede that a society consists of individuals, yet ascribe cultural
advances to "communities of individuals". The communities may embody the
culture, but the means for changing culture is the individual.
jc continues:
> Ham also and more importantly said:
>
> No matter how hard I try, I cannot
> conceive of the "cosmos moving towards higher forms of consciousness".
This
> is contrary to everything I understand about the nature of reality,
> including Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The individual is the
> Choicemaker -- the primary mover of society and culture. Nothing in an
> "uncreated source" like Quality -- even if that source is thought to
> evolve -- can account for the intellectual decisions that change our
> socio-cultural conditions, for better or worse.
jc says:
> jc concurs completely but is confused.
>
> Evolution on it's own impetus doesn't make sense. There HAS to be
> some kind of outside drawing power or generating force to bring about
> evolutionary change. DQ in some form or other is to my mind a
> logical necessity for life, the universe and everything.
>
> But on the other hand, you can't have an individual "Choose" anything
> that isn't already apparent. There is no way an individual can move
> a society or culture unless the other individuals that make up the
> society or culture agree to go along. It takes a lot more than two
> to do the culture tango.
Agreed. But why do you place the emphasis on the herd rather than on the
primary idea source? Could this possibly be the source of your confusion?
> Ham further stated:
> Pisig's thesis forces the inclusion of biological evolution in our
> understanding of intellectual development. He makes Nature, rather than
> man, the *animus* of his Quality system, denigrating individuality as some
> kind of outmoded myth. This not only opposes my anthropocentric belief,
it
> appears to be a major stumbling block to full acceptance of the MoQ by
> David, Scott, and Bo, among others. This is why I said: "His philosophy
> disavows the propriety of individual consciousness. ...
> jc responds:
> There is nothing improper about consciousness. So long as it
> doesn't get any big ideas about itself.
Apparently you are missing the point I'm trying to make, which was stated in
the next statement quoted:
> For Pirsig, what drives mankind -- desire, values, free will -- are not
> aspects of selfness but an external, communal esthesis." I might have
> added: Unlike Pirsig, who said "freedom doesn't mean anything",
> freedom means everything to the individual who recognizes the value of
> his automony.
jc replies:
>
> Communal esthesis? I don't remember reading anything that obtuse in
> RMP's writings. I know communal but I'd actually have to look up
> "esthesis". Sounds somewhat like "aesthetic" and we all know the
> scorn and derision poured upon them bon bon eaters.
Esthesis is my term and, yes, it does sound like "aesthetic", which is
precisely why I use it in this context. Runes' definition is: "A state of
pure feeling--sensuous, hedonic, or affective--characterized by the absence
of conceptual and interpretational elements." In other words, Dynamic
Quality. I maintain that such sensibility is unique to the individual,
hence cannot be attributed to organic, inorganic, or socio-cultural entities
which have no self-awareness.
jc continues:
> However, just as a practical point -- desire, values, free will --
> how could those possibly be aspects of selfness? ALL of them are
> relative to community and all of them are culturally derived and
> defined. Aspects of selfness? Whew!! what kinda junk have you been
> reading boy?
Ignoring the sarcasm, I suggest you give it some thoughtful consideration.
What, in your opinion, meets the test for self-awareness? Is Nature aware
of itself? Can the universe feel desires and appreciate values? Is Quality
a self-conscious entity? (Vitalists have posited such theories; but the
MoQ's author is not a vitalist -- if anything, he's a self-styled
anthropologist -- and I doubt very much that he intended to infuse Quality
with a vitalistic life-force.)
jc retorts [his words]:
> Ok, I know I'm just a framer and not a real philosopher and all, but
> that whole Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" thing always bugged me a lot.
> Think about what? You don't have self awareness until you are fully
> aware of all the cosmic other that presents itself to you. It is
> foolisness to think that the self arises and confirms the ten
> thousand things. It is enlightenment to know that the ten thousand
> things confirm you. The use of your self awareness as a basis for
> your subsequent knowledge seems to this framer's eye, a bad
> foundation.
Glad to know that your feel "enlightened" by the ten thousand "things" that
confirm you. But, in deference to the Cogito, what more does that
confirmation provide than the awareness you have of your own existence?
jc finally understands [again, his wording]:
> Whew! Ok, I get it. You're saying that where you're coming from is
> SOM and you like it there and you don't want to change and even if
> everybody tries and tells you different and argues real convincing it
> doesn't matter because you LIKE it that way. You like being THE
> subject and turning everything and everybody else into objects and
> you resent Pirsig for trying to argue you out of it.
By George, he's GOT it! What more can I say?
Regards,
Ham
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 : Fri Aug 26 2005 - 20:13:34 BST