From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 12:57:29 BST
Mike
> > > So to answer your question, I do belive that "small self" egos are bad
> > > and ought to be dissolved.
> >
> > Platt:
> > Disagree. Small self is required to make the "big self" meaningful, just
> > as you can't conceive of the one without the many, or large without
> > small.
>
> Isn't that like arguing that you can't make a value judgement between
> any pair of opposites? You might as well be saying that conservatism
> is no better than liberalism, simply because they contrast :D
If you "dissolve" liberalism there would be no need for conservatism. You
need the opposites in order to make a value judgment. In fact, without
opposites there would be nothing to judge.
> > Platt:
> > Hmmm. I wonder why, if drugs are so useful, why Pirsig wrote: "Things
> > like sex and booze and drugs and- tobacco have a high biological quality,
> > that is, they feel good, but are harmful for social reasons. They take
> > all your money. They break up your family. They threaten the stability of
> > the community."
>
> Mike:
> I think that quote is very insightful up to a point - up to the point
> where Pirsig lumps all drugs together - together with sex, booze and
> tobacco, which were all good examples. The best examples are the most
> addictive and most expensive drugs, like heroin and cocaine. They take all
> your money. They break up your family. In addition, they fuel organised
> crime. All low social quality.
>
> Now, move along the scale to tobacco and booze. The same problems are
> there, to a lesser degree (at least, tobacco certainly doesn't break
> up families like heroin or, yes, booze can), except their legality
> removes the organised crime problem. However, there are clear
> social-level benefits that balance the social-level problems, to some
> degree. In moderation, a couple of drinks can be extremely beneficial
> on the social level.
>
> In fact, the more I think about it, the less enchanted I am about the
> Pirsig quote you gave. It's abundantly clear that the low quality of
> tobacco and booze is spread over the biological and social levels.
> Lung cancer? Liver failure? Likewise, the benefits of booze are spread over
> the biological and social levels. Yes, they "feel good", but the good
> feeling isn't merely a biological sensation; it can also be an improved
> connection with your friends. It's notable that these benefits tend to
> disappear when moderation is abandoned.
>
> It only remains for me to assert that psychedelics can have enormous
> social-level benefits.
Many people have given up smoking because it's considered anti-social.
Same goes for hard liquor, wine being the more socially acceptable.
Psychedelics had their day in the 60's. They are no longer considered the
"in" thing to do. So I'm not convinced they have enormous social benefits.
The fallout from their widespread use in the 60's indicates the opposite.
> > Platt:
> > Anyway, hard
> > to prove one way or another that drug-induced reality is the "real"
> > reality, nor that it's much different than the experience of "born again"
> > which is usually obtained without the aid of drugs.
>
> Mike:
> Your love of Pirsig and your scare quotes around "real" show that you
> know perfectly well that there is no single "real" reality.
I don't know what you mean by "scare quotes." As for a single "real"
reality, Pirsig claims there is -- Quality.
Regards,
Platt
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 : Mon Oct 24 2005 - 14:39:42 BST