[MD] Platt and Arlo: Individuals and Collectives Redux

[Arlo Bensinger]

Hi Mike,

A polite way of saying, "shut the f&#$ up!"?? :-)

Actually, your succinct way of putting the argument below I'd say is 99% 
accurate. What I was hoping to make clear is that it is the dialogic 
relation between individuals and collectives on each MOQ level that 
sustains the levels and allows the emergence of the next higher level.

As I restated the words of Pirsig in an email to Platt, the "individual" is 
contained within the "collective", and the "collective" is contained within 
the "individual", with no contradiction. It is, in my opinion, only a 
fool's quest to not only demand the two are distinct, but that one is 
utterly more valuable than the other. Like saying the Yin is all there is, 
and the Yang is incidental. Of course, since the Randian Weltanshauung has 
no language for anything other than the Supremeity of the Lone Individual, 
all Platt hears is that I favor the "collective", a threat he responds to 
only with rhetorical fear of "the state" and "gulags".

An adequate sum of the dialogue could go something like this:

Platt: The Yin is supreme!
Arlo: Actually, the Yang is important too.
Platt: Commie!
Arlo: No, you see, it is the energy of the Yin-Yang interaction that is 
what's important.
Platt: So, you're saying the Yin is nothing but dirt.
Arlo: What? No. I'm saying that the Yang creates the Yin in the same way 
the Yin creates the Yang.
Platt: So I guess you're in favor of killing the Yin. Where have I heard 
that before? Oh, yes, Arlo is a Stalinist.
Arlo: No, I do see the value of the Yin, as I see the value of the Yang. 
But in both cases I see the emergent value of their interaction as greater 
than the two apart.
Platt: Round up your kids, everyone, Gulag Leader Arlo is coming to kill 
all the Yins and send everyone in America to a prison camp.
Arlo: C'mon, I said I see the value of the Yin, I'm arguing that what comes 
from the interaction is what's valuable. Indeed, I don't think it's really 
possible to separate the two to begin with.
Platt: So, Yin doesn't count. Yin is nothing and your favor the state's 
right to kill it.
Arlo: No, I favor looking at the Yin-Yang relationship.
Platt: Only the Yin matters. We should rename the entire diagram "Just 
Yin". Yang is, after all, nothing but a Marxist, liberal plot to devalue 
the Yin.
Arlo: No, Yang is important too, equally so, as they contain and create 
each other.
Platt: Commie!

etc. etc. etc.

So while I agree that you got it 99% (and elegantly too, I'd add), I'd 
restate my position to read, ""Lila" was in many ways shaped by Pirsig's 
microgenetic, social, cultural and
philosophical background. The fact that the actual writing of "Lila" was 
undertaken by Pirsig as an individual is a banal truism." I use 
"microgenetic" here in a way borrowed from socio-cultural theory to mean 
the immediate experiences of Pirsig in coordination with the socio-cultural 
shared experience of the collective consciousness he appropriated.

Arlo



At 09:18 AM 12/5/2005, you wrote:
>Please tell me if this is an accurate summary of your recent slew of
>correspondence on the MD:
>
>Platt: "Lila" was written by an individual, Robert Pirsig. The fact
>that he was influenced by other thinkers is a banal truism.
>Arlo: "Lila" was in many ways shaped by Pirsig's social, cultural and
>philosophical background. The fact that the actual writing of "Lila"
>was undertaken by Pirsig as an individual is a banal truism.
>
>So, aren't there things you would rather be talking about than banal truisms?
>
>Regards,
>Mike
>moq_discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/