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

[Platt Holden]

It's a fine day, Arlo:

> [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. 

Since I don't believe there is such a thing as "collective consciousness" 
I'm not confused. Consciousness is only known by individuals, one person 
at a time. Likewise, there's no collective "mind."  

> [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"?

Self-defense is to protect individual freedom. Changes benefiting the free 
market are to ensure individual opportunity. As for Walmart, I'm puzzled 
why you rant and rave against a firm that makes goods affordable to the 
poor and "disadvantaged" whom you worry about. 

> 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.

You're confusing a society of cells with a society of people. Pirsig 
clearly distinguishes the two.

> [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.

Rather than "collective consciousness" I would say that I "came into 
being" in an environment consisting of various patterns ranging from the 
inorganic to the intellectual plus a dynamic moral element.. 

> [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).

You call them "structures," while I prefer "patterns" Same difference.
They make up the total environment. (By the way, you're included.)

> [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.

I'l buy that. The catalyst is "Get out of the way."
 
> [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.

You have to ask of every attempt to use coercion to alleviate natural 
constraints "At what cost?" and "Where's the evidence?" For all the 
billions taxed from others to alleviate poverty, poverty is still as 
widespread as ever.  

> [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.

And I say it's fundamentally true. No one can write a metaphysics for you, 
or even your posts to the MD. :-)

Platt