[MD] MD 4th level - The more autonomous level

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Mornin' Platt,

[You wrote]
Whether it be collectives of communism or fascism, I've 
witnessed the horrors engineered by both in the 20th century.

[Arlo]
You're confusing the "collective consciousness" with specific political regimes.
The Russians and the Germans were no more, and no less, reliant on the
collective activity of man than Americans are. 

[Platt]
So when someone praises collectives for their good works and claims that this or
that program must be enacted "for the public good," I instinctively revolt.

[Arlo]
Aren't our soldiers dying in Iraq "for the public good"? Aren't the Iraqis
themselves being killed "for the public good"? When a police officer is ordered
to raid a drug den, isn't he risking his life "for the public good"? Indeed,
aren't we forced to pay for the military "for the public good"? When dozens of
families are displaced to make way for a Interstate Bypass (as happened here),
don't we say this is "for the public good"? When Walmart is giving the right of
"eminent domain", don't you say this is "for the public good"? When we torture
someone in an attempt to extract information, don't you say this is "for the
public good"?

By the way, I don't "praise collectives for their good works", I see the value
of potential that collective activity affords. Such as the emergence of higher
levels on the MOQ. Although I will say, you damn well better praise the
"collective" of cells that is your your body for their "good work". Without it,
the higher organism (you) could never have emerged.

[Platt]
I've seen too much killing for the collective's sake. For me the 
struggle between the individual vs. the collective is the struggle of you 
and me against Pirsig's killer Giant.    

[Arlo]
Except that Pirsig places the "Giant" as a higher organism that individual,
biological man. "A higher organism (Giant) is feeding upon a lower one
(individual, biological man) and accomplishing more by doing so than the lower
organism can accomplish alone."

But, I do agree that balance is required between freedom from degeneracy (do we
want to be cavemen again) and requisite static latching. We don't "serve the
public good" by blind obedience and servitude (that's the mistake the
Stalinists made), nor do we condemn "the public good" in favor of "do whatever
I want". In this sense, social patterns are not something to be rebelled
against per se, nor are they something to be uncritically obedient to. To do
either is both disingenuous and dangerous.

But, again, I think we need to disentangle the idea of the "collective
consciousness" from "certain political static social patterns". The idea that
you could (or even want to) rebel against the Mythos, the collective human
consciousness from whose potential-enabling appropriation "Platt" came into
being (as something other than a biological agent) is absurd. To do so would be
to argue for being cavemen.

[Arlo previously]
This stands in contrast to the idea that "man is a free agent". He is, but not
entirely. Man is only so free as to act within the constraints and affordances
of his birth, which include global cultural structures (the Mythos), localized
social structures (the economic value of his birthright) and uniquie biological
structures (his physical attributes).

[Platt] 
No one can deny that people are born with unequal attributes into unequal 
circumstances -- or as liberal's like to say, "Many are losers in life's 
lottery." All the more reason to support a social system that offers 
everyone the maximum freedom to fulfill his or her potential.

[Arlo]
Agree. And that's what I am doing. Arguing for a social system that offerns
everyone the maximum freedom to fulfill potential. And this is why its
important to be critical of social structures (be they govermental or
"private") that impact this. Maximize the opportunity to "Flow" for everyone.

[Platt]
I submit that the social system that best provides that freedom is one that
recognizes the individual as a means to his own ends rather than as a 
means to ends of others. I know collectivists think individuals should  
live for the sake of others. But we have seen the horrors that leads to.

[Arlo]
I think there is a BIG difference between saying you want to "maximize freedom"
and "let everyone make the most of what they are born with". The latter accepts
social constraints on freedom as "just the way it is", and argues that that
laborer should be supported in maximizing his/her efforts within those
"natural" constraints, while the former argues that we need to examine those
"constraints" in the first place.

You'll never make everyone's unique birth "equal" (which as I said include
global cultural structures (the Mythos), localized social structures (the
economic value of his birthright) and uniquie biological structures (his
physical attributes)), but you can examine those localized social structures
intellectually and see where the much lauded individuals are being
unnecessarily constrained. For an example we've already talked about, public
libraries and literacy programs, that are offered by "forced social funding" do
so to combat unnecessary and dangerous constraints on the opportunity of those
born into low economic structures. Also, "forced social funding" of handicapped
access to areas where these persons would otherwise be unable to go.

In both of those examples, the opportunity to maximize potential is greatly
increased for those born into situations where this potential is unnecessarily
and dangerously prohibited.

[Platt]
That's why I support the "Great Man" theory of history. It says to every 
child, "You too can be great." Isn't that the message you want to impart 
to the next generation?

[Arlo]
Unfortunately, that's not all it says. It says, "and you do it alone". Which is
just fundamentally untrue.

Arlo