From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 - 20:10:42 GMT
Case snipped my empassioned rant, and then said...
[Case]
Just one question. If you eliminate the Mind's I or the Me, Me, what's left
over?
[Arlo]
Who eliminates the "me"? Not me! I've never proclaimed there is not an ASPECT of
"me" that is unique to my experience (or "proprietary" as Ham calls it). But
that is not the "me" in toto.
Nor have I ever claimed the "I" is not a useful analogue. I am not for
abandoning the "me", I'm just not for worshipping it. I've tried to outline my
position on this before, to both Ham and Platt, but always fail because to them
there are only two positions, Pure Isolated Me on High and No Me Collective
Stew. And as such, any challege to the Mighty Me brings forth nothing but
rejoinders of totalitarianism.
Which, I must say, I'm surprised even you charachterized an "extremity" of my
position as being. Anyone who's read anything I've ever written knows that's
lunacy. As per adverstising, my feeling mirrors that of Pirsig in ZMM. Namely
that the place to effect change is in the dialogue, and let the "market"
respond naturally.
Pirsig wanted to give people a language by which to critically evaluate all the
"junk" that was being produced and consumed. Unable to see Quality, no one had
a real means to make Quality decisions, let alone effect systemic change. My
"goal", if you can call it that, is to examine how a Quality-based dialogue
(the same one Pirsig got underway in ZMM) can help people make better decisions
with regards to how things are produced and how they are consumed. No guns, no
government bully, no police state. Just a natural evolution from an informed,
Quality enriched dialogue.
My hypothetical (eliminate advertising and you'd get a real free market) was
only rhetorical to show one of the inherent defects in market activity. But the
way to eliminate advertising is not by guns or by police, but by simply
bringing Quality into the dialogue. I'd imagine you'd still have Platt's
heralded "getting the message out" part of advertising, but the "stylized
syrup" or the "value add" propaganda undergirding "consumer psychology" would
vanish naturally.
Also, what must be seen, is the greater "money" dialogue undergirding the
culture. This gets back to "motive", something I had hoped to explore in
another thread. Its apropro we print "In God We Trust" on our money, because
money IS our god. It could just as well read "In This We Trust". People like
Platt argue that "money-profit" is the sole, natural impetus to act. I contend
that this is an unnatural reversion to biological-level patterns of
"self-profit", where concern for YOU was necessary for survival. Obviously,
Pirsig had higher goals in mind than money-profit when he wrote ZMM. His
concern, I think is self-evident, was for enriching the social and Intellectual
patterns. THIS goal should be the natural one we foster in children. NOT money.
That's not to say that "money" should be eliminated or that no one should buy
themselves things they value. Only that it has to be removed from its unnatural
elevation to the Zenith of Our Culture.
Which is, you see, the same problem with the "me". But in both these cases this
is how the dialogue unfolds. Either the Me is Isolated Wonder or "you want to
abolish it". Either advertising is Pure Unmanipulative Freedom, or "you want to
steal Christmas decorations from all the Platts down in Plattville". Either
money is The Highest Goal of Life, or "you're a totalitarian who wants to toss
people into gulags."
Sad. Very, very sad.
Arlo
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 Nov 04 2005 - 21:28:00 GMT