[212.141.54.103])
by mill.venus.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19088
for <moq_focus@moq.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:45:17 +0100 (BST)
Received: from zen (62.98.124.133) by mailrelay3.inwind.it (5.5.029)
id 3BBC28F5000440E5 for moq_focus@moq.org; Thu, 4 Oct 2001
18:45:19 +0200
Message-ID: <005601c14cf3$a4691ac0$857c623e@zen>
From: "Marco" <marble@inwind.it>
To: <moq_focus@moq.org>
References: <200110032308.AAA09193@mill.venus.co.uk>
Subject: Re: MF Individual freedom
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:37:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: owner-moq_focus@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
Jonathan, and all Moffers,
I've sent a message two days ago, but apparently it has gone lost. The
problem
is that I did not save it in my
"sent" folder... so it is lost forever. Well, I can rebuild it, but
your
message changes a bit my perspective.
In facts I opened my lost message writing: "I guess we all agree that
individual
freedom is an intellectual pattern of values" (or something like that)
but
evidently my guess is wrong. You state that the individual freedom is a
social
pattern, and it sounds strange to my ears. How can individuality be
social?
You yourself open your post writing that Pirsig says that individual
freedom is
an intellectual pattern so there's a problem. Is individuality an
intellectual
pattern of values or not? If the answer is no, we have a lot of
problems. A
great part of the MOQ edifice
stands upon the analysis of the society vs. individual struggle, to the
extent
that in the last chapters it is hard even to distinguish the difference
between
intellect and individual. But your example of the American Natives is
not
valueless, so let me try my interpretation.
"Studies of bones left by the cavemen indicate that cannibalism, not
cooperation, was a pre-society norm. Primitive tribes such as the
American
Indians have no record of sweetness and cooperation with other tribes".
(Lila, ch. 24)
I've always considered the freedom of the American Natives somewhat
pre-social.
That is, the Natives had never built the strong social structures we had
in
Europe, or that Mayas and Incas had in Central/South America. Their
individual
freedom was not a freedom *from* social patterns, rather it was sort of
a
freedom *before* social patterns. You know, when I see the
representation of the
life of Italian ancient peoples, before the development of the Roman
Empire, I
don't see them very different from the American Natives. The only
difference is
that Romans did not use to make Wild West movies.... :-), so we know
very little
about the European Natives of 1000 BC. By the way, I think this vision
explains
also why in North America they did not develop very much science and
rationality, while Mayas did. They had not a strong society asking for
technologies.
Not that the Natives had not social structures, the matter is just that
those
structures were not highly developed. With the result that their way of
life,
confronted to the European, *seemed* free to the early settlers, while
their
freedom was for them just their natural state, not a conquest. That's
the
difference. Whether they have influenced the foundation of the USA or
not is,
as we now, another thread. But the myth of the "good savage" was
developed in
those times within the European culture just to show that society is not
a
natural condition, and that as well as we have built it, we could also
learn to
surpass it. Society is not the end of the story. That's why, IMO,
*individual
freedom from society* is, within our culture, an intellectual pattern.
At this point, before going on, it would be sage to know what you all
think
about this point, 'cause if individuality is a social pattern, the whole
thread
has no sense. In the meanwhile, I'll try to recover my earlier post
Thanks,
Marco
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
To: <moq_focus@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:48 AM
Subject: MF Individual freedom
> Hi all,
>
> >Is the individual freedom from the society a mean
> >or an end of the intellectual level?
>
> I always seem to start off by attacking the question;-)
> In this case the question implies that individual freedom is an
> intellectual pattern.
> Just because Pirsig says it does not mean that it should go
> unquestioned.
>
> IMO, individual freedom is a SOCIAL pattern.
>
> I think that my point is demonstrated by Pirsig's own favourite example
> - Native Americans - to demonstrate the point. The way Pirsig describes
> the intellectual level, it is something that evolved under special
> conditions and in specific societies. I think that there is a strong
> argument that the intellectual level AS WE KNOW IT is not represented in
> Native American society. Otherwise, Pirsig would have surely laboured
> the point. On the other hand, that society traditionally values
> individual freedom very highly.
>
> What Pirsig does in Lila is to rationalise the benefits of valuing
> individual freedom. The only thing that might be considered an
> intellectual pattern is this rationalization. Then again, I wonder what
> the Indians would make of it!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST