[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Scott Roberts]

Arlo,

A couple of comments. First, the "all men are created equal" phrase stems 
from Locke, with his assumption that we all start life as a tabula rasa. 
Jefferson was an admirer of Locke, and in addition to this, borrowed from 
Locke the idea of natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness (though he changed that last one: Locke said life, liberty and 
estate).

Second, I believe (but can't remember where he stated it) an Indian value 
that Pirsig rejected was their practice of torturing their captives -- and 
in general their glorification of warfare.

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:21 PM
Subject: [MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)


In a recent post I commented on Pirsig's analysis that the Indians, through
their simple, honest and direct speech, were the "originators" (Pirsig's 
word)
of the "American Plains Spoken" cowboy, in contrast the "wihio" speech of 
the
Victorians (Newspeak, in Orwellian terms).

On this, Pirsig commented that the modern American is a mixture of both this
Indian style of speaking and the Victorian style, but (still according to
Pirsig), these sides within us are in conflict.

Then I had asked, "Are we still moving towards the values of the Indian? 
Plains
spoken, simplicity and directness? Or are we moving backwards towards
Victorianspeak, Newspeak, "full of involutions and curlicues and floral
patterns that had no practical function whatsoever, and distracted you from
whatever content was there"?"

To this, Platt had replied, "Besides filtering out the fact that many Indian
values are totally unsuited to modern life..."

To be fair, elsewhere in the post I included this quote from Pirsig, "The 
moral
values that were replacing the old European Victorian ones were the moral
values of American Indians: kindness to children, maximum freedom, openness 
of
speech, love of simplicity, affinity for nature. ... The
twentieth century intellectuals were claiming scientific sanction for what 
they
were doing, but the changes that were actually taking place in America were
changes toward the values of the Indian."

We also know from Pirsig that "all men are created equal" comes from the
Indians, not the Europeans. "The idea that "all men are created equal" is a
gift to the world from the American Indian. Europeans who settled here only
transmitted it as a doctrine that they sometimes followed and sometimes did
not. The real source was someone for whom social equality was no mere 
doctrine,
who had equality built into his bones. To him it was inconceivable that the
world could be any other way. For him there was no other way of life. That's
what Ten Bears was trying to tell them."

We also know that the finale of Lila, "Good is a noun" is an Indian thought. 
One
taken from Boas' writings on the Dakota.

So, up to now I see the following "Indian values"; simple, honest speech,
kindness to children, maximum freedom, openness of speech, love of 
simplicity,
affinity for nature, good as a noun, and all men being created equal. Which 
of
these do we discard as "unfitted for modern life"?

The passage Platt might be referring to is this. "Indian values are all 
right
for an Indian style of life, but they don't work so well in a complex
technological society. Indians themselves have a terrible time when they 
move
from the reservation to the city. Cities function on punctuality and 
attention
to material detail. They depend on the ability to subordinate to authority,
whether it is a cop or an office manager or a bus driver. An upbringing that
allows the child to grow "naturally" in the Indian fashion does not 
necessarily
guarantee the finest sort of urban adjustment."

So here we see that the "values" necessary for "modern life' incude 
"punctuality
and attention to material detail". Also, the "ability to subordinate to
authority". I can begin to see why these three things; punctuality, detail 
and
subordination to authority are so important to those seeking a return to
Victorianism, and submission to Party Ideology.

Pirsig also had this to say, "in America you're supposed to be socially 
superior
like a European and socially equal like an Indian at the same time". Maybe 
this
is the key statement. European Victorianism was structured around "social
superiority", something so desireous among the Party Jesters, while "social
equality", an Indian value, must hence be unfitted for modern life, where
presumably "social superiority" is for more valuable.

Here is, of course, the core of the issue. Indian values of social equality
versus Victorian values of social superiority. How many times in the last 
five
days have we heard how "social equality" leads to gulags. We are supposed to
actually "fear" the idea of social equality. Its a fiction. Some people ARE
superior to others. And the mercantilists had the perfect way to divine this
superiority. Money. Wealth. Having it proves you are superior to the lazy,
stupid poor, the dregs of life, the wastoids, the losers.

This is the "Indian value" the Party Jesters find "unfitted for modern 
life".
Sure, subordination to authority is important, but valuing "social 
superiority"
is KEY! Am I right? Because for the life of me I can't see how simple, 
honest
speech, kindness to children, maximum freedom, openness of speech, love of
simplicity, affinity for nature, good as a noun, and all men being created
equal are "unfitted for modern life".

And what does this say about modern life? That punctuality, attention to 
detail,
subordination to authority and social superiority are the ultimate goals we
should aspire to? While that sounds like the Limbaugh show condensed, is it
really where we want to be?

Pirsig wrote, "Phaedrus thought the Indians haven't yet lost this one. They
haven't yet won it either, he realized; the fight isn't over. It's still the
central internal conflict in America today. It's a fault line, a 
discontinuity
that runs through the center of the American cultural personality. It's
dominated American history from the beginning and continues to be a source 
of
both national strength and weakness today. And as Phaedrus' studies got 
deeper
and deeper he saw that it was to this conflict between European and Indian
values, between freedom and order, that his study should be directed."

It is against this, perhaps, that the great party machines chug away, eager 
to
distort the notion of "social equality" (not to mention simple, honest 
speech,
kindness to children, maximum freedom, openness of speech, love of 
simplicity,
affinity for nature, and all men being created equal) as some gulag-based 
evil,
ready to devour men into the abyss of suffering. That the Indian value of
"social equality" underlies half the American psyche was significant to 
Pirsig,
a message he wanted to get across.

He write, "The experience of William James Sidis had shown that you can't 
just
tell people about Indians and expect them to listen. They already know about
Indians. Their cup of tea is full. The cultural immune system will keep them
from hearing anything else. Phaedrus hoped this Quality metaphysics was
something that would get past the immune system and show that American 
Indian
mysticism is not something alien from American culture. It's a deep 
submerged
hidden root of it."

The Party Jesters will tell you (of course) that that deep submerged hidden 
root
is evil (like the original sin of the Christians). The Party Jesters will 
tell
you (of course) that the two are diametrically opposed, with one (Victorian
social superiority) being Absolute Good, while the other (Indian social
equality) being Absolute Evil. Any MENTION of the Indian value is 
IMMEDIATELY
followed by Wurlitzers and fear about Marxists and gulags and guns and 
millions
dead.

But this false, distortive dichotomy misses the key point in Lila. Did the
Indians NOT think some things were better than others? After all, it is from
them that we get "good is a noun". At the end of Lila, John (an Indian) 
tells
LaVerne the dog is "a good dog", demonstrating that he "distinguished the 
dog
according to its Quality, rather than according to its substance".

Dusenberry, they referred to as a GOOD man, rather than as whites would say 
a
good MAN. Here is the final key, the cornerstone if you will, to this
discussion.

"The Indians didn't see man as an object to whom the adjective "good" may or 
may
not be applied."

That, right there, is the value against which the Victorians rail and scream 
and
cry and shout fear and Wurlitzer all their propagandic dribble. And that, I
submit, is the "Indian value" that the Victorians would find most "unfitted 
for
modern life".

Thoughts?

Arlo

PS: Platt, if you're going to criticize this using the usual fear of 
Marxism,
gulags, guns and "leftist professors", at least take the time to point out,
using Pirsig, where my errors lie.
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/