RE: MD the metaphysics of self-interest

From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 09:49:53 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "RE: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise"

    Hi Platt

    Platt said:
    Your distinction between "real but not fundamental" is fuzzy to me. Are
    there no "real" stones as in the famous passage from Boswell's "Life of
    (Samuel) Johnson?

    Paul:
    Johnson's stone-kicking refutes idealism, not the MOQ. What I mean by
    "real but not fundamental" is that whilst there are no subjects or
    objects without experience, there is experience without subjects and
    objects. Therefore, if the subjective self is neither essential to nor
    ubiquitous in experience it cannot be considered fundamental - but, this
    experience also supports the belief that the self is not necessarily
    unreal. Likewise, static patterns are not fundamental, but the MOQ does
    not deny that they are real.

    Paul previously said:
    > Second, given the above, I think the MOQ defines "little self" as
    static
    > patterns from all levels and "self-interest" as static
    biological-social
    > quality - i.e. biological pleasure and satisfaction mixed with a
    > preoccupation with social status, ego and wealth.

    Platt said:
    It will take some doing to convince me that intellectuals aren't as
    self-absorbed as anybody else, if that's your point.

    Paul:
    No, that's not my point. You seem to have misunderstood me because you
    misunderstand the MOQ's terminology. When you say, "intellectuals," you
    are using the word as a noun. In the MOQ, "intellectual" is used as an
    adjective to describe a category of static quality. "An intellectual,"
    like anyone else, is composed of static patterns from all levels.

    My point is this - that which motivates *anyone* to be self-absorbed
    with reputation, wealth, ego, status etc. is static social quality.
     
    Platt said:
    Self-interest propels all behavior don't you think, whether employees
    (including PhD's), CEOs, or independent contractors?

    Paul:
    No. I am arguing that self-interest is *biological-social* behaviour,
    not intellectual or Dynamic, and therefore doesn't propel all behaviour.
    If a PhD is behaving with self-interest, then that is biological-social
    behaviour.

    > Paul previously said:
    > As above, I think it is a completely real motivating force that fits
    > neatly into the biological and social levels of evolution.

    Platt said:
    And not intellectual? I don't think many PhD's would qualify as Mother
    Teresas.

    Paul:
    See above, this is irrelevant.
     
    Platt said:
    Where does the MOQ say or imply that intellectual patterns offer freedom
    from self-interest?

    Paul:
    It is a logical argument. Pirsig says this about social quality:

    "Social quality measurements....are such things as conformity to social
    custom, popularity, ego satisfaction, and 'reputation'." [Pirsig, MOQ
    Textbook]

    and

    "Fame and fortune are huge Dynamic parameters that give society its
    shape and meaning." [Lila, Ch.20]

    I argue that this is self-interest. Then, I apply the basic MOQ
    principle that each level of evolution moves away from, controls, and is
    often in opposition to, the "quality" that defines the previous level -
    therefore providing freedom from that quality. Lila is filled with
    examples of this and I'm sure you are familiar with them.

    Of course, if you disagree with the premises of my argument then you
    will disagree with my conclusion.

    Platt said:
    According to Joseph Campbell, early man had all sorts of taboos against
    "eating, killing or screwing anything we desired." Social taboos are
    more "human nature" than the activities you describe.

    Paul:
    Any "taboo" you can think of is a social pattern, which was my point -
    static social quality has largely succeeded in controlling biological
    impulses. Your argument that it is incorrect to say that biological
    patterns are human nature is the same as my argument that it is
    incorrect to say that self-interest is human nature - it doesn't include
    the whole picture

    (Also, I'm surprised that you seem to be defending man's "basic good
    nature" as you are normally so keen to point out how this is a
    "devastating fiction.")

    Paul previously said:
    > Society
    > has largely succeeded in controlling these biological impulses but it
    seems
    > clear to me that intellect has not yet managed to control man's
    obsession
    > with social quality.

    Platt said:
    Seems to me Western society is still at war with biological impulses
    called "terrorism" sanctioned by radical Islam society.

    Paul:
    I think it's a little more complicated than the social patterns of US
    media would have you believe, but I don't want to introduce it into this
    thread - although I think self-interest is something the current Western
    leaders know a lot about, and intellect has evidently taken a back seat.
    Before you start - No, I don't condone terrorism, or more generally, I
    don't condone blowing up innocent people.

    Cheers

    Paul

    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 Jul 12 2004 - 17:10:17 BST