I'm glad we could find some common ground. I suspected we might be
simply talking past each other or simply having typical vocabulary
In that light, I still think we have both latched onto differing nuances
of the term 'solidarity'. I recognize your apprehension towards the
connotation of conformity. I have a similar visceral reaction to
conformity most times. I like Wim's comments on the term.
'appealing to solidarity is a healthy and necessary counterbalance
against class/national/ethnic/whatever selfishess' You replied 17/9
16:08 -0400: 'class, nationalism, and ethnicity are prime examples of
appeals to "selfish" solidarity'. In Dutch 'solidarity' has the distinct
flavor of 'unselfishness'. Some types of unselfishness are of course
still relatively selfish from an even more 'unselfish' point of view.
Appeals to class, national and ethnic consciousness are indeed 'selfish'
from my humanitarian or even holistic point of view. Solidarity is from
my point of view an individual choice and not inconsistent with
individual liberty. 'Enforced solidarity' needs no 'appeals'.
'Collective solidarity' should be no more than the aggregate of
individual choices and as such I see no harm in it.
For me, Wim's 'collective solidarity' captures the flavor of the word
that I'm trying to convey.
Perhaps the difficulty arises from a sq/DQ cut in the 'solidarity
event'. The unification of collective choices made from individual
liberty forming a Movement towards some broadly appealing goal (Dynamic
Solidarity, if you will) which then stagnates (as things always do from
an MOQ POV) into the rigid social pattern that carries the nuance of
conformity that you find (rightly so) so distasteful. Is that an
Social and intellectual static patterns are subject to influence by DQ,
but static inorganic and biological patterns are no longer in flux,
they are universally fixed by nature. Man can tinker with DNA and
create unnatural life forms, not as a result of DQ, but of amoral
run amok. Nanotechnology threatens the physical make up of the
universe, but if as a result we all disappear into a black hole it won't
Surely there continues to be flux in biological patterns-- Has evolution
As for inorganic patterns, I'm curious what QM would say about the
amount of flux in the material universe. But even outside of the
sub-atomic relm I would suggest that erosion, glaciation and other
natural forces introduce flux. Wouldn't Pirsig suggest that inorganic
patterns have DQ even if it's almost imperceptible to the naked senses?
Perhaps this is being overly nit-picky about language, but isn't that
fundamental to rhetoric?
Your comment also reminded me of a question that I've seen discussed
here but I'm not certain if I've seen the answer. Can DQ be destructive?
Your concerns about the ramifications of nanotechnology suggest to me
that you would attribute benevolence to DQ. Or at least some kind of
anthropomorphic sense of concern over the plight of the human animal on
this rock we call Earth. If a more robust organism is introduced to the
planet that ends the period of human domination we find ourselves in, is
this NOT DQ at work? Could DQ be manifest through the Dynamic actions of
human Intellect even if the action results in massively distastrous
consequences for human Static patterns?
My own feelings on the subject are greatly conflicted, I must confess.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:34 BST