[MD] Platt and Arlo

[Rebecca Temmer]

Dmb, Arlo, Paul and all else [Platt addressed below]:

When Dave chimed in about Platt's Randian viewpoint I was inspired to write
the following:

Platt,
I think your point of view is very valuable to this discussion list.  99% of
the time I don't agree with this position and I don't seem to be alone.
Regardless of the fact that you're a flagrant oddity in terms of this group
your opinions are very common in other circles and, while being generally
disagreeable to me, are not in fact stupid.  Your identification with right
wing conservatism allows the rest of us an insight into that part of the
culture.  Philosophy is not for the faint of heart and having a differing
take on the universe than those around you takes some kind of strength,
which you seem to have.  While I am not agreeing with your point of view, I
belive your ability to play devil's advocate is important in the overall
scheme of things around here and gives the rest of us some food for
thought.  Knowing what you're up against is half the battle and wars are
never won without some hardships.

Thanks,
Rebecca

On 12/10/05, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul, Arlo, Platt and all MOQers:
>
> Paul Turner quoted an article:
> "...All our inherited ideas of good and bad; all the cells which replicate
> and die in our bodies; all the viruses which effect our health; all the
> colours, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and ideas we ever
> experience, flow in, flow down and flow out. All our memories, sensations,
> emotions, desires and actions flow in to the vortex, shape it and flow
> out.
> ...In reality we are not ultimately separate from the rest of the Sea of
> Conditions, from all the vast immensity of life itself. But we don't see
> it
> like that..."
>
> Arlo quoted from Lila:
> "...This Cartesian "Me," this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind
> our eyeballs looking out
> through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world, is
> just
> completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of reality is
> just
> an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This
> Cartesian "Me" is a software reality, not a hardware reality...."
>
> Naturally, the resident Randian objected:
> The metaphor in the article about Buddhist conditionality is much like
> Arlo's "individuals are raindrops" metaphor. The problem I have with both
> is
> the not-so-subtle implication that individual humans have the same value
> status as inorganic raindrops and ocean vortexes.
>
> dmb chimes in:
> Platt, when are you going to realize that your worship of the Ayn Randian
> autonomous individual is part and parcel of the SOM problem? This kind of
> excessive individualism is what leads to the isolation and alienation of
> our
> time. When are you going to stop responding to the Buddhist/mystical
> concept
> of self with anti-communist paranoia? When are you going to see how
> inappropriate that is? And in this case, when I say "inappropriate" I
> really
> mean "stupid". I'm sorry, but the acceptance or rejection of these
> concepts
> simply has nothing to do with the political ideologies that you fear so
> much
> and about which you know so little. Clinging to this little self, this
> static self is approximately the oppostie of enlightenment. And if we are
> free to the extent that we follow DQ, then we are free to the extent that
> we
> DON'T cling to the static forms, including - no - ESPECIALLY the static
> self. If you re-read the scene where Phaedrus finally finds Quality,
> you'll
> see that "he" disappeared. I really don't understand how a long-time MOQer
> like yourslef can continue to cling to this "ridiculous fiction". What the
> deal, man?
>
> Here's a little more from that article:
> Grabbing onto some conditions as they drift by, pushing away others, we
> each
> create an apparently workable ego-identity for ourselves and then spend
> the
> rest of our lives in a desperate attempt to preserve that identity.
> ...Everything that lives is subject to decay. All conditioned things are
> impermanent. To be alive is to change. Without change we would be
> absolutely
> inert. But the un-Enlightened human condition is to fight change every
> inch
> of the way."
>
> dmb says:
> Desperately attempt to preserve the ego and fight change every inch of the
> way. Hmmm. Maybe it is political because that pretty well describes the
> average American conservative and nails Platt very squarely on the head.
> Don't you think?
>
> Sorry. I couldn't resist.
> dmb
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>