From: jc (jcpryor@nccn.net)
Date: Sun Aug 28 2005 - 09:23:02 BST
At 2:33 PM -0400 8/26/05, <hampday@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hello JC --
>
>(May I call you 'Jay', or do you have a real name?)
jc does just fine. It said John Carl Pryor on my birth certificate
when I was born, but my dad was John and so it's been nicknames ever
since. Everybody calls me jc and that's how I introduce myself. I
can't give you more name than I've got.
>
>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.
I disagree based upon the empirical evidence of all the major changes
culture and society have gone through where it has always been that a
smaller community of strong individuals saw and brought about the
need changes. Martin Luther had his Melanchthon, Leonardo was
driven by competition with Michelangelo and vice versa and the
Beatles once experienced a hot competition with the Beach Boys.
This is because when DQ is most needed and most manifest, the time
for change is ripe, many experience it simultaneously and often far
apart, but more often in dialogue and dialectic. DQ acts beyond the
intellect to inspire individual intellects in different ways, but
still all toward Quality. The Tao convergence, I'd brand it.
Ham responds to:
>
> > 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.
with:
>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?
jc answers:
Because until there is recognition by the herd upon the Quality of
what your "primary idea source" has come up with, there is no
cultural, social, intellectual SQ advance. Therefore that herd
intrigues me greatly and thus I place emphasis upon it.
And the only confusion in my mind so far has been generated by your words.
Such as...
> > 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.
Well that was sortof a rhetorical flourish, I admit. Probably not
admitable in any serious court of philosophical judgement as being
flippant and rude and beside the point. But I thought quality in
thought and expression have more to do with rhetoric than robert's
rules of order, and besides, I'm just the kind of guy to be flippant
and rude on occasion but don't take it too personally. It's just me.
However, chucking and jiving aside, I do not believe I missed your
main point. I just disagree completely but lack the weapons to
engage you upon the field of battle you have defined. Esthesis and
all. But humo(u)r me for moment while I try.
You are definitely taking "freedom doesn't mean anything" out of it's
proper context and I don't believe he denigrates individuality, I
believe he places it in it's proper context.
And I have to say that I think anthropocentricism is the heart of
darkness in philosophical thought today. We arise from relation to
nature and that relation is the only true source of value. You're
advocating a solipsistic hell here my friend and I vote no. If you
have another point to make, you sure don't contradict my final
conclusion.
After wondering where my confusion comes from, Ham defines esthesis
for me and admits it's HIS term at the same time (nice ploy that -
I'll have to remember it):
>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..
jc flippantly replies:
In other words, poppycock. You can't have a feeling without
conceptual or interpretational elements. I never have. Nobody I
know ever has and I can't even imagine the possibility. Even if it
was possible you couldn't describe it so what good would it do? Or
more importantly, what Good would it be?
Ham stated:
> 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 shakes his head sadly:
I wouldn't say attributed, but I'd definitely say affected.
Ham responds to:
>
> > 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?
with:
>Ignoring the sarcasm, I suggest you give it some thoughtful consideration.
>What, in your opinion, meets the test for self-awareness?
and that darn flippant jc replies with obviously little thought or
consideration:
Anything that is willing to sit down and fill out the forms.
Actually, it's a simple test. You have one box to check, are you
self aware, yes or no. All entities which check the one marked
"yes", pass the test.
This sometime causes problems when a room full of monkeys with access
to typewriters bang out the occasional correct answer and have to be
given citizenship, but all in all it's a generically useful way of
sorting things.
Ham continues his search for intelligence in the universe:
> 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.)
Here's the thing, I don't know what is conscious or not until it taps
me on the shoulder. Different cultures ascribe self awareness to all
kinds of different levels of reality. Myself, I keep an open mind.
I don't discount it one way or the other. Any part of Nature that
appears to be self aware, I'll accept as such. It's not a big deal I
have to pry into for every entity I come across. I don't assume all
people are self aware. Many of them seem not to be. I don't assume
all rocks are not because rocks are so old that if they do
communicate and think of themselves it's just on a level I can't
comprehend. I don't poke into their business and they usually stay
out of mine.
I do think Quality is beyond intellect and thus self aware and thus I
guess I'm a vitalist. (and how you oppose anthropology to vitalism
is hard to figure)
But it seems to me that you pick on Pirsig because he doesn't
reinforce your prechosen views, and thus you are missing the point.
You can choose how to look at the universe. Just remember that it's
your individual choice and relative to what is good and not good.
Ham responded to some stuff jc wrote about the Cogito and Lao Tzu:
>
>
>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 smacks his head:
What more do you want? What more do you need? I got existence, I
got awareness, I got my gal, who could ask for anything more?
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 : Sun Aug 28 2005 - 11:45:57 BST