[MD] The MOQ, Pathogens, and Individualism

[Krimel]

Arlo,

I am not sure I buy the conclusions of this article but the approach is
excellent. This line of thinking can and does produce fresh insights and new
understanding about who we are and how we came to be this way. 

It is stunning to find seemingly intelligent folks conversing here who are
not familiar with the basic concepts that this article assumes we all know.
It does make it easier to understand a lot of the talking past each other
that goes on but it is a bit depressing. Among the assumptions we bring to
these discussions is the assumption that others grasp some of these
fundamental ideas. Sadly it would seem this is not the case.

Krimel



-----Original Message-----
From: ARLO J BENSINGER JR [mailto:ajb102 at psu.edu] 
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:48 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: [MD] The MOQ, Pathogens, and Individualism

All,

In another thread I had proposed that a MOQ understanding of the "self" sees
it
as an intellectual pattern deriving from the contact point between the
assimilated collective unconscious and the unique bounded experience of the
organism. 

This is an extension from Pirsig's notion that the "individual" is "4 levels
plus DQ". Our material bodies are biological and inorganic. Our "mind" is
social and intellectual. And, as we know from Pirsig, intellectual patterns
originate out of society.

In this week's Newsweek, there is an article that captures the MOQ to a "T".
It
is "You can blame the bugs" by Sharon Begly.

She begins by pointing to the differnece between eastern and western ways of
seeing. "As Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan described in his
2003
book, "The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently
. and Why," Westerners typically see classifications where Asians see
relationships. He means "see" literally. When students in one study looked
at
tanks holding a large fish, a bunch of small fry and the usual aquarium
plants
and rocks, the Japanese later said they'd seen lots of background elements;
the
Americans saw the big fish."

This draws to mind Aristotle and his influence on western thinking from ZMM.
And how Pirsig had commented that those in the East don't see the "big deal"
of
ZMM. Where we see "classifications", they see "relationships"

Here I am immediately reminded of Pirsig's thought from ZMM. "And now he
began
to see for the first time the unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he
gained power to understand and rule the world in terms of dialectic truths,
had
lost. He had built empires of scientific capability to manipulate the
phenomena
of nature into enormous manifestations of his own dreams of power and
wealth...but for this he had exchanged an empire of understanding of equal
magnitude: an understanding of what it is to be a part of the world, and not
an
enemy of it." (ZMM)

Jumping ahead, Begley directly points to this by saying, "Societies that
arose
in places with fewer pathogens had the luxury of individualism, which is
less
effective at limiting the spread of disease but brings with it other social
benefits, such as innovation."

So what does she mean "fewer pathogens"? Begley's article asks whether
exposure
to pathogenic microbes, disease, may be behind the
"individualist-collectivist
split" evidenced by various cultures.

"The West epitomizes individualistic, do-your-own thing cultures, ones where
the rights of the individual equal and often trump those of the group and
where
differences are valued. East Asian societies exalt the larger society:
behavior
is constrained by social roles, conformity is prized, outsiders shunned."

Her point is summed up by this statement.

"But the reason a society falls where it does on the
individualism-collectivism
spectrum has been pretty much a mystery. Now a team of researchers has come
up
with a surprising explanation: disease-causing microbes. Societies that
evolved
in places with an abundance of pathogens, they argue, had to adopt behaviors
that add up to collectivism, for reasons of sheer preservation. Societies
that
arose in places with fewer pathogens had the luxury of individualism."


But notice here the direct MOQ understanding. 

Social patterns emerge out of biology. "In places with a high prevalence of
pathogens, such cultural traits-which happen to be the hallmarks of
societies
that value the group over the individual-would be adaptive. Put another way,
societies that arose in pathogen-rife regions and did not have such traits
would be wiped out by disease. Societies that did have them would survive."

Socially we adapted to certain behaviors in response to the biological
world. 

Intellectually, our views on "individualism" and "collectivism" where then
derived from these cultural patterns.

"Our history of living with infectious diseases may have shaped, in ways
we're
not even aware of, human cognition, behavior and culture."

Pirsig challenges Aristotle's intellectual patterns in ZMM, laying them at
the
foot of our modern problems. But in a MOQ view, Aristotle's intellectual
understandings originated from his culture, which in turn was shaped by
social
responses to biological patterns.

The article is here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/130623

Arlo



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/