[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Heather Perella]

Hello all,

     This is my second posting of this topic to catch
up with the current postings.  We can go round and
round with our finger as we trace the moon.


     Platt said:  "The Marxist thinker has his heart
set on changing the world for the better. In his
little ivory tower, the idea of minding his own
business is considered shameful."

     Platt your "...heart set on changing the world
for the better," is a weak argument, because wouldn't
that be a general idea or motivation for any doctor,
even one that is a "free to choose" kind of person,
thus, free to choose to help or make the world better
rather than hurting or degenerating the world?  Platt
you skip so many questions, and make comments that
anybody would know are comments that overlook
explanations already given and clearly are
explanations that agree with your understanding.  You
try to make it appear as if Arlo is saying stuff that
is Marxist and even though he is making statements
that agree with your philosophy.  You overlook them
and figure out a way to argue.  I know you do this on
purpose so Arlo's depth of meaning is carefully
contrasted.  All stories need a yin so we can clearly
notice the yang.  Thanks Platt!   

     Arlo said:  "I'd argue that you can strike the
"individual rights" right out of there. The Indians,
remember, were masters of "individual rights". In
Indian society, "freedom" was above all else, which
underscores two characterists of their values
"unfitted" for modern life, "non-punctuality" and
"non-subordination to authority". And yet they were
hardly "capitalistic".  What really matters in
capitalism is "property rights"."

     Then you went on to say what individual rights do
we have that Europe doesn't.  Our individual rights
would be based on property rights.  Here is the
freedom found in the Amerindian, their lack of
property identification.  
     On the one extreme this actualizes as the
Yanomamo in South America.  Their lack of property
identification turns into walking and picking up an
anthropologists 'property' that he brought with him
including food, pencils, paper, and etc... to the
point in which he moved some distance from the
village.  Then he said hot dogs were penis' and they
stopped taking his food.  Their taking though is
extreme because they go to other villages to violently
take women and expand their territory (this kind of
territory is not property as in the European or U.S.
sense of property.  It is in the we are here and you
are not because we will kill you so go away.).  This
kind of social pressure is debated as to how long such
activities have become necessary and why for these
people.  
     On the other extreme you have the Amerindians of
the now Eastern U.S. who gave and gave in order to
share and avoid conflict.  There is enough space for
all of us attitude.  
     The idea of non-property (1) becomes all is mine
and I'll take it via coercive force if necessary, or
(2) what's mine is yours and thus we share or give
away.
     The idea of property (1) becomes something is
attain and gain by force, or (2) no sharing, just
buying or trade cancels the property by one to
another.
      For both of these force can occur because of the
biological level, not by this mere social idea,
unless, buying or trade with property understanding
occurs, or sharing with non-property understanding
occurs.  To share or give away has no laying of
property by any involved.  Ever have somebody give you
a gift, then you give that gift away, but they get mad
at you because they bought it for you and hoped you
would keep and like it.  This last sentence is not
true giving away, because a sense of property is still
tied to the 'gift' by the giver.  the giver still
holds an attachment or has property value on the
'gift'.  To share is to recognize what's mine is yours
and what's yours is mine, but if either involved begin
to dictate the shared item in any way without the
consent of the other(s) involved, then no sharing is
actually occurring.
     What is involved in the system of sharing/giving
versus buying/trading that may have one differ from
the other?  (I will come back to this latter in this
posting, but some clarity to some concepts I will be
using have assumptions that I want to make apparent,
because to peer into these two systems is to peer into
life itself.)  Value might be not so rigid in the
former system compared to the latter.  In the latter
once I begin to contemplate from a value system point
of view I notice that attachment is made stronger or
greater by placing such a high value on a static
quality on what the latter is or identified as.  What
I mean is that when the value of something becomes so
great that attachment grows ever increasingly rigid,
then that which breaks the attachment is to become
ever increasingly strong or powerful.  
     By morally positioning any value the rigidity or
looseness of such a value depends on the attachment
the value has with this world.  More rigid means more
attachment, which I would say is more static meaning
of the Pirsig levels more static is of the
chaotic-inorganic level.  The less attachment any
value has with this world, the less static and the
more dynamic the value becomes, thereby changing its'
identification or staticness or attachment as to what
'it' is.  
     The static scale of more rigid to less rigid
(more static to less static; more attachment to less
attachment) is morality.  This scale is moral (that
which is right versus wrong) is also a 'what is life'
and 'what is not life' or in other words, 'what is
moral' and 'what is not moral'.  What is less moral is
less life.  What is more moral is more life.  
     What is life?  Life is a very difficult term to
define, because I would say life is quality.  Life
exists and so much more, thus, these are definitions
of life, including such a definition as 'that which
exists'.  
     Chaos exists so I would say it is included under
this very general definition of what life is.  Yet,
how much chaos exists?  Where can I track chaos down
and find it?  What of quantum levels in which chaos
seems to rein?  Quantum levels are contained within
the more static level of inorganic.  Thus, that which
fills the definition of life more fully and not just
one aspect of it (as chaos is defined by existence
alone above),  Each time more definition (and I do
mean definition in the sense of dictionary definition)
is able to be given to life a larger or more
encompassing sphere of existences must be understood. 
For instance, yes chaos exists, but so does order.  So
how does life include in its' definition not just
chaos but also order?  If chaos exists, then just
saying order exists does not set order apart from
chaos in their respective definitions, which is - they
exist.  
     Life thereby does not just exist, but it also has
definition.  To say chaos has orderly definition is
way beyond what chaos is.  Thus, life is way beyond
what chaos is.  Life is chaos because chaos exists and
so does life, but also life has order so life takes
the extra step in recognizing not just chaos, as chaos
does, but life also notices order.  The inorganic
level loosens up the very staticly attached, not much
acceptance other than what it is chaos and is able to
include order.  The inorganic level is more dynamic in
its' versatility in including the vast depth of
quality that we know exists in this universe.  Not
only does the inorganic level provide for chaos, but
the inorganic level provides for order, too.
      Life is not only chaotic or inorganic.  Life
connects together chaos and inorganic, which organic
is the sprout of something not just existing and not
just having orderly definition.  Organic is existing
as orderly definition becoming even less static, thus,
less identifiable due to the merging of order and
chaos which can now be still and movement, yin and
yang, this and that, etc...  The one concept is chaos,
the second is inorganic, and the third concept is when
these two are together, not separated.  You could call
this third concept the 'and' in "yin and yang".  Thus,
when the world has chaos and inorganic, then we have a
third that is still identifiable as organic due to
another level 1 and 2 equaling 3.  
     Notice how difficult it is for me to identify
each level as I go from such a self-identifying, thus,
very staticly understood level as chaos to the less
staticly understood levels of inorganic to organic. 
What of level 4 - society?  This is even less static
and identifiable.  I can show you chaos moving about
as I order such an occurrence using the inorganic
world of rocks thrown into the air.  I can point at
the organic world of trees and grass, though, it is
more difficult to show you organic by my actions other
than cultivating corn and showing you or just me
walking.  To identify society I cannot show you in the
chaotic, inorganic, or even organic.  I can still
point to it, but what I point out is not very static
at all and though the definition must be very orderly
to be able to pin-point what society actually is,
thus, much order must be present for such pin-point
accuracy, since, it is more difficult to point to
society than it is to find a rock on this earth
clearly society is highly definable, but less
identifiable staticly.  Something less rigid such as
words are operative on this level.
     What of intellect - the fifth level?  So far the
more I have to define something, the more life I have
been saying it has.  By more life I mean not referring
to quantity, I am referring to the extension or effort
I must go through just to point 'it' out - 'it' being
the level I am discussing.  What measure of effort
could we apply for chaos to exist?  Not much. 
Inorganic?  Well, since none of the previous levels
disappear, I would say inorganic under the strains of
chaos has to have more effort to not collapse. 
Organic?  Even more effort to distinction itself even
though chaos and inorganic make-up organic levels of
existence.  Society?  Again more effort means more
energy since a society is a bunch of organics having
the energy to pull together into some kind of union
that would involve more pieces to the process of
having exchanges that make a relationship not just
this or that, but this and that adding that little bit
extra that has to extend beyond oneself.  To extend
takes effort and energy that one of anything does not
do.
     Intellect?  To be able to understand anything
that I wrote so far takes more than chaos, more than
rocks, more than a finger, and more than just us.  It
takes something less static than all mentioned so far.
 It is not very identifiable at all.  What would
define it, other than itself?  Thus, for intellect to
know of itself cannot be only words and meanings. 
Intellect involves putting words together, having
syntax, meaning, and the ability to view itself.  Can
chaos notice itself?  Without any order to contrast
chaos, then chaos has no distinctions or is definable.
 How about rocks?  At this level rocks and chaos are,
but what would notice them?  Themselves by
distinction?  Something would have to be of order
(rocks) and disorder (chaos) together which is plants.
 Do plants view themselves?  Something of a mirror
having a reflection, thus, a grouped system would need
to be.  Groups of anything do not happen until society
level.  Can something without a group mentality,
therefore, an individual of anything notice itself? 
No, a group of individuals may notice each other, and
this is when anything may notice another.  A system or
network or group mentality is different from pure
individualism.  Does the organic level have group
mentality?  No, but groups have organic or in other
words, individuals. 
     Thus, to be on the intellectual level is to exist
orderly as individuals in groups where multiples
provide different inputs.  What of chaos and inorganic
coming together to have organic and thus, notice 3
levels, which is a multitude.  3 levels is more than
one level, yet, the only time any one of these levels
become a group is to say they are a society.  When a
society exists cooperatively, then it is a society.  A
group existing uncooperatively is not together and
thus, is below the level of society holding together
organically as an individual.  Anytime a group
concept, even a system of processes/networks within
one individual plant (organic level) is discussed we
are discussing a society of individual cells for
instance that are working together in a manner that is
able to be defined as a group.  What the individuals
offer as a group goes beyond just pointing out this is
a group.  
     Another moral level of distinction or in other
words an added feature, thus, something else added to
the definition of life is an even more precise effort,
thus, more energy must go into identifying what is not
just existing, not just orderly, not just an
individual, and not just a group, but is all of these
plus, which is the interchange or input or expression
of the group.  What defines the group?  What could we
say about this group or that group to even point out
it is a group?  What makes a group - a group?  I
couldn't say it is chaos, rocks, plants, or people. 
People in China and people in Chili are people, but
what makes the group of people in China - one group
and Chilians another group.  Sure rocks based on
geography do, and they may eat different plants, and
they each are a group, but something else defines
groups more than just location and what is in a
location, unless something is being expressed by the
group that identifies them as a group.  Something else
other than group, something added on like expression
identifies a group.  It is their input and output. 
This is exactly what intellect is.  Intellect is the
input and output of any existing system.  It is the
effort that comes out of or into a definable group
that is definable because of their collective effort,
which effort collectively is an expression not just of
an individual cell, plant, or person, but any effort
from a group becomes another feature called intellect.
 Thus, the group of features known as the universe
when acting collectively and all the workings that
interchange in the universe therefore becomes
intellectual.  Any time groups are studied, the extras
or expressions beyond group, such as identification of
group (to identify a group is not just the group, but
it is the identification of the group, too) is to
present intellect.
     Intellect is the least static of all the levels. 
This looseness or unrigidness nature of intellect is
noticeable in so many ways.  For one, how I have come
to the conclusions that I did about the levels just
discussed is very open to not only speculation,
argument, debate, but some of this could be purely
just a way I was able to think about life and nobody
else might even understand what I just talked about. 
The intellect is not very static at all.  The more
static anything is, the more solid in its' definition
it becomes, and at least for me, the very words or
identifiers Pirsig used for each level channeled me to
come up with the definitions and comments that I have
just made maybe to the point of beating a dead horse
to some or all readers.
     Why is chaos so different from DQ, yet, because
chaos has quality we will still notice DQ within
chaos?  Chaos is disorderly and DQ is not only
disorderly, but it is orderly plus these two together
becoming one thing that is unidentifiable plus many
things not definable plus this whole group of
undefinable individuals that express something
undefined, thus, DQ is less static than intellect.  DQ
cannot be grasped at all in any static position to be
seen or noticed as even being a something or nothing. 
It is the adding on of definitions that go well beyond
any stopping point, and thus, to define DQ would be
more add on's to this or any post that no post could
ever hold and be able to define.  DQ is not static.
     With these assumptions that I have about the
levels and quality I want to return to the question I
brought up earlier in this post.  This has to do with
property that Arlo mentioned.  What is involved in the
system of (1) sharing/giving versus (2) buying/trading
that may have one differ from the other?
     Where do I place value when involved in the first
system?  I would say in at least the expression level
of a group, which is intellect.  What of the second? 
In the individual level, why?  The value is in the
item I have versus the item somebody else has.  It is
a case by case basis, in other words, the individually
separated item is valued.  Comparisons are made, thus,
this is the intellectual level as well, because the
group (the individuals involved) are expressing their
values in an act of buying/trading.  So what's the
difference?
     After all of this I have a clear mind.  Maybe
from the point of view of quality none of these values
offer any differences based on the levels.  The levels
don't matter when it comes to overall quality.  Morals
get more accurate expressing values as one goes from
chaos to intellect, yet, on the level of DQ the
accuracy and precision is not just the arrow hitting
the target, the arrow is the target with DQ.  The
moral ladder expresses no more and is simply not just
existing.  To say existing is to be DQ is to simplify
DQ to a definition as simply as chaos itself being
defined as that which exists.  DQ is not simply or
complexly definable.  To place a moral on DQ is to say
it is right or wrong.  I would say it is the highest
moral and thus exactly right, yet, this is also not DQ
because then I might say 'what does highest moral
mean?' and then say well that is to be right or
existing right.  Yet, what does existing right mean? 
How would I know such an act of existing right?  I
would then say when I stop trying to define any of
this.  
     How do I conclude what property is?  I would have
to define whatever it is I would call property.  How
do I conclude property is not here?   Well, by not
being able to define property, which happens with
anything I try to define anyways.

     Arlo said:  "As I said, property ownership is
actually a mutual social decision to subordinate
freedom to ownership. I can buy a plot of land, say
down by the river, and put up a fence with "No
Trespassing" signs. To the Indian, such a thing would
be a revolting restriction on individual freedom. But,
we agree to it, because by giving you my acceptance to
keep my off your land, I get from the contract the
ability to keep you off mine. We both sacrifice our
freedom to gain economically.  The same goes to
Platt's condemnation of the Indians non-punctuality.
To the Indian, having the freedom to "take days off
for vision quests" or to go and do whatever one
wanted, runs akin to modern life that demands we
subordinate ourselves to the authority that tells us
when we can do certain things, and when we can't. We
do this voluntarily, of course, because again we
sacrifice freedom to gain economically."

     Yes, we subordinate freedom to ownership and
subordinate freedom to gain economically.  Ownership
is rigidly static and sharp distinction, which are
pretty much the same thing.  Gaining economically
requires discontentment and sharp distinction, which
pretty much is the same thing.  This culture thinks
relaxing is evil and being together is lazy.

     This posting went on and on and then the birds
woke up, the sun rose and an act of ordinary nature is
what we do on our own not in some harsh
individualistic way... and then the trees became
green.  Around and round we trace with our finger the
sun.

SA      
                

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com