From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Jul 27 2004 - 17:11:33 BST
>Platt, DMB, Paul,, All:
>
Platt:
> Both DMB and Paul narrowly define success as fame and fortune. I doubt if
> they would apply that definition to themselves as individuals, but rather
> use the term's primary meaning of "favorable or desired outcome." In fact,
> I'll bet they would agree that their own individual success is more along
> the lines of Annotation 198:
>
mel:
The question is a very good one though and it shows more of
our thinking in how we approach answering it, than in what answer
any of us gives. I even clearly see how my own thinking is way too
much stuck in the muck of SOM historical patterns.
[So, those of us primitive lung fish are here in the pleasant waters of the
bay discussing the "Air-Land" metaphysics (ALM) brought to us by the
'icthius pirsigensis', yet none of us have actually ventured above water
to use the real "Water-Shore" metaphysics (WSM).
We make points that stimulate heated discussion in our strong
opinions, but you will notice we are still in the water.]
Platt:
> "Zen argues that is through stillness, not action, than a man (individual)
> can realize himself, in the sense of actualizing his potentialities and
> developing his personality towards the ideal state of harmonious
> integration of his powers."
>
mel:
I may understand this differently, as Zen makes use of non-action to
discover the illusion of self/mind, but in action (in living) is found
realization.
(of course the one time I thought I'd experienced enlightenment I heard
a sputtering sound behind me and discovered it was just gas.so...)
Platt:
> Once the weakness of DMB's premise that success is a social pattern is
> made clear, the rest of his critique of my position regarding the
individual level
> disintegrates into little more than an anti-Randian rant.
>
mel:
While we have indeed concentrated on Success in the Social, I missed any
relegation of it as SOLELY in that level, but the discussion vis its SOM
trap
has been helpful to my thinking.
Regarding the individual/intellectual v society/social pairings, I am
still
considering how well those match and am bothered by:
A) how easily individual can fall into either the biological or the
intellectual (slippery fish flopping around in mind) and
B) how often FICTITIOUS the aggregation of the social often feels
and my own inability to clearly see when a group of individuals becomes
a VALID social unit in function.
Part of my inability comes from seeing how Sociology is a convenient
verbalization of 'averages', that is non-predictive of actual individual
behavior. --Like using random assumption statistics in non-random
situations or events.
Rand is often problematic in my mind as I consider her. She seems to
be reactive to some extent to the whole C20 Russian Soviet and
Socialist failed tactics.(Camus' Rebel had not yet been written, or
at least widely read, nor had she seen the collapse.)
When the 'emotional charge' is removed from her message I do see an
interesting residual that SEEMS not incompatible with a notion of the
individual as responsible for their own evolution. This by itself is a
very potent message, even with economics and social struggle removed.
MoQ seems not incompatible with an imperative of evolution. ;-)
>
> Fame and fortune are social level values. An individual can intellectually
> choose biological values, social values or intellectual values to pursue.
> His intentions are often intellectual, that is, he can rationalize his
> behavior, like gamblers and criminals do. But it's his behavior that
> determines what value level applies.
>
mel:
It does seem to me that the most significant level of responsibility,
and by extension morality, is at the level of individual action. (All
larger
groups are simply aggregations of that formulation, from a certain point
of view.) It also seems that at the individual level the quality is most
likely
to be more potentially dynamic than is group action, but at some point the
coordination between members of a group can be significantly dynamic. Say
the group who met to create the former colonies' American Constitution.
The trap of rationalizing IS a good one to be aware of.
thanks--mel
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 : Tue Jul 27 2004 - 17:41:50 BST