From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 00:55:48 BST
Arlo, Ham,
[Ham wrote]
>At the same time (and at least as important to me) there is a need to
>establish the role of the "individual" in the Quality thesis. I'm
>constantly troubled by the assertions made here that individuality is of
>minor consequence, that conscious awareness arises as a byproduct of
>Nature's evolution to higher levels of complexity, that the individual self
>is a meaningless abstraction whose choices and will to act are mere
>reflections of the "intellectual culture" from which it emerges. This
>reminds me of Sartre's thoughtless comment that "man is 'unnecessary'
>...the
>world exists just as well without him."
Arlo said:
This type of "crisis" appears to only be a "crisis" for someone who can't
accept that Randian Individualism has no place in the MOQ. There have been
several threads on this topic, including one where I tried to demonstrate
that the symbiotic-dialectic between the "individual" and the "collective"
does not place precedence of one over the other, but this does not equate
to the "devaluation of the individual" decried by the Ayn Rand crowd (see
MD: Intellect as Consciousness, and MD Collective Consciousness).
That said, the reason (perhaps) that no one is rushing in to solve the
"problem of the individual in the MOQ" is that only Randians see a problem
here. In other words, its not a crisis, just a thorn in the side of the
Stand Alone Genius mythologists. :-)
Scott:
It looks to me like both of you are misrepresenting the other's position to
some extent. Ham characterizes the MOQ (or some proponents) as regarding the
"individual self [as] a meaningless abstraction". Abstraction, maybe, but
not meaningless. It is (according to the MOQ) an intellectual SPOV, which is
to say it is at a high level of morality. But I agree with Ham that there is
a problem in the MOQ to account for individual responsibility and freedom,
if choice is allocated to DQ.
Arlo, meanwhile, seems to group all those who have a problem with the MOQ
treatment of the individual as Randian. I am one of those, and I abhor
Randian philosophy. I would also say that Arlo's "symbiotic-dialectic
between the "individual" and the "collective" [that] does not place
precedence of one over the other" is not MOQian either. Surely, when we have
disagreements we are acknowledging the individual as taking precedence over
the collective insofar as we don't sic the cops on those we disagree with.
However much our thoughts bubble up within a social milieu, need validation
by peers, etc., they are nevertheless thoughts of an individual. What else
has thoughts? The whole point of strengthening intellect is to make one's
own thoughts more autonomous.
- Scott
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 Sep 02 2005 - 02:34:33 BST