[MD] Memes and themes of community dances

[John Carl]

Arlo,

After a not-so-brief interlude:


> [John]
> Here I'm not so sure.  It seems to me that there's an extreme individualism
> that shines through Pirsig's work - the fact that it's an MoQ truism that
> the
> levels are discrete and it's immoral for intellectual patterns to indulge
> in
> social considerations somewhat obviate your point here, imo.
>
> [Arlo]
> What I think Pirsig offers is a great metaphysics of the "individual
> engaged in
> collective activity". Too many modern thinkers are trapped in the false
> dichotomy of "indivdual versus collective" as if the two "forces" were
> opposed,
> or at war even.
>
>
John:

By "modern thinkers" you describe the basic tenets of Liberalism and I
agree, Arlo.  Pirsig's MoQ does indeed offer a different way of thinking
about this posited "conflict" which we  say is of higher quality.   The
trick is that often in discussing these issues, we get caught up in the very
patterns which we are trying to analyze and improve.  This background
assumption of liberal humanism is the very basis of our (intellectual)
being, and this is very difficult to criticize.  But I think you basically
hit the nail on the head - the standardized way of treating the forces of
socialization and the forces of individuation as intrinsically oppositional,
is wrong and must be corrected if there is to be any hope for evolutionary
change.  I find great hope in Royce's explication, added to M. Scott Peck's
ideas about community and I think Chris Anderson's topic of "Crowd Enhanced
Innovation" is a very worthy development along these lines.

A crowd, in the sense he's describing, is more than a collection of
individuals.  It's an entity itself with different parts.  A "body" if you
will, composed of many different organs.  Some organs seem more vital than
others, but really, you need them all.  What would our bodies do without a
spleen?  For instance.

See?  I told you Platt has great value. ;-)



> What we see are that individual patterns are the emergent results of the
> collective activity of smaller individual patterns. Where we demarcate the
> boundaries of an "individual" pattern of any sort is purely
> categorizational.
>

I think I'm saying something different.  I'm looking at the parts as more
functional than merely categorizational.  I'm sure Pirsig was correct when
he described the different ways you can look at the parts of the motorcycle,
but implicit in his explication is the underlying fact that some ways are
better than others.    To grasp the functionality, takes a deeper
understanding of the overall function of the machine, and while more
difficult, it's more revealing.


>
> What "extreme individualism" misses, and the MOQ (and from what I've read,
> CEI)
> gets is the individual effort is always part of a collective activity, you
> can
> not "skip" the social level in the evolutionary trajectory and go from
> biological patterns to intellectual patterns.
>
>
A "collective" implies the mere addition of similar parts.  Which is why I
prefer the term "community" - parts that communicate meaningful
functionality.


> Its important to remember that "collective activity" consists of sitting in
> your garage and repairing your motorcycle. Your voice, your tools, the
> machine
> itself, the  repair manual, the garage, the coffee-maker, are all
> socially-mediating and part of the activity. Bahktin, I think, would go
> further
> to argue that the "real" activity that is going on is the mental dialogue
> you
> are having with all the voices from your experience that are guiding your
> activity.
>
> Yes, I agree with the main point you make that every individual is
functionaly a communal entity - with different aspects of personality and
influences working together to create a cohesive (hopefully!) being.




> [John]
> Here's one part of the point I wanted to drive forward of Anderson's Crowd
> Enhanced Innovation - that there is a complex ecosystem involved in
> innovation
> and the chief innovators are only one part of that crowd.
>
> [Arlo]
> I've mentioned an ecosystem analogy in another context, and I do like it. I
> think the book A People's History of Science begins with such an analogy.
> In
> education, we are looking at the classroom as an ecosystem as well (or
> should
> be). One of the students I've worked with said about the ecosystem analogy
> is
> that you can't escape the notion that any "individual" ecosystem is
> unavoidably
> part of a larger ecosystem. The Everglades can be examined as a closed,
> singular ecosystem, but is not isolated nor independent from larger
> ecosystems
> which includes the continental plates, Arctic Oscillation, El Niño, etc.
>
> Its all a matter of focus. Even a Global Ecosystem view must recognize the
> interstellar ecosystem or even a galactic ecosystem of which it is a part.
> Now,
> pragmatically you can speak about the Everglades ecosystem without having
> to
> bring in the forces that exist at the level of the Galactic Ecosystem, but
> you
> can't say they exist apart or independently of each other.
>
>
John:

I agree that the organic model is the source of all our analogies, and
"where you draw the line" is definitely a question the MoQ answers better
than any other metaphysical system I can think of.



> [John]
> To my analysis then, the MoQ posits a crowd as competitively responding to
> DQ,
> with one alpha dog, where as Crowd Enhanced Innovation posits the crowd
> responding cooperatively and that's closer to the way real innovation
> happens.
>
> [Arlo]
> I don't see the MOQ, or rather Pirsig, positing any such thing.
>
>
John:

Then I'm projecting falsely out of my own neurosis and issues.  Good.  I'm
glad to hear it.  One important reason for the community to communicate
differing perspectives.  When you offer criticism of my take on things, it
enhances my take on things.



> [John]
> This whole area of video-sharing also pertains to a recent topic of trust
> and
> paranoia on MD that we've been discussing.  Video-sharing certainly
> obviates
> the use of avatars, doesn't it.  It's not quite Ian's face-to-face
> conversation, but it's much closer.
>
> [Arlo]
> I've said to Mary recently, that the topic of identity construction and
> negotiation is a prime interest of mine.
>
> To your point above, I'd ask how you would "know" that a person in a video
> speaking as "me" is not an actor/actress I've paid to repeat lines? How do
> you
> know the photos on my facebook page are "me" and not an actor? (Anyone on
> the
> list has an open invite to friend me on Facebook).
>
>
John:

I'd say the complications and cost involved in finding a consistent actor to
play out a characterizations, would tend to obviate such a falsehood.

Facebook, otoh, generates authenticity with it's huge web of
interrelationships.  There you'll find not only me, but my wife and kids and
uncles and aunts and friends from high school... it's really quite a crowd
indeed!  Who could possibly invent such a vast fakery?  The cost in time and
effort would obviously be far prohibitive to any conceivable benefit.

And btw, ditto. I'm also completely open to being friended on FB.  I don't
do much there, but at least I know I have a connection when I desire one...
a way of reaching out when I feel like I need to.  I like it and I see how
it's changing the social landscape of the world.

Heck, just look what it's doing in Egypt!  Amazing!

Arlo:


> Just cutting the chase I'd say this, when you are talking to "someone" you
> are
> always talking to an "avatar". We have this mistaken belief that the "self"
> is
> almost an organ of the human body, and human bodies only have one self, and
> the
> "real" self is dependent on the physical construction of the body.
>
>
John:

I see your point and have offered the idea that I myself am an avatar of
myself and so I agree.  My presentation of myself is always a creation -
there's no way around that!

I guess the temptation to renew or falsify one's expression, is when you
feel trapped in a static trap of social expectation.  Then you'd want to
create a new false front so you could say certain things that are not quite
within your normal repertoire of characteristic character.
For me, I solve the problem by blatantly being quite flighty and
inconsistent - thus nobody can possibly have any social expectation of me at
all!

Arlo:


> Consider the case of transgendered individuals. There "selves" are one
> gender
> while the bodies are another. I make the argument that there is not any one
> "real self", but a plurality of "selves" that are constructed in-the-moment
> and
> negotiated socially as the dialogue evolves.
>
>
John:

Well like I said, I agree.

Arlo:

That said, there are dishonest and subversive uses of avatars that should be
> condemned. I mentioned to Mary what I consider, for purposes here, to be
> two
> such practices.
>
> One, the creation of an avatar to play a "foil" or easily ridiculed
> adversary
> to one's held position. Plato actually did this in his dialogues, so the
> practice dates way back.
>
>
John:

Yes, and Marsha mentioned that also, some while back in MD.  I remember.  I
remember she stated it as justification for doing so and if my memory
serves, it was in reference to Platt.

If memory doesn't serve, then I'll have to use the archives!

Amazing things, archives.

Arlo:


> Two, the appearance of agent provocateurs, "avatars" used in a deliberate
> attempt to derail or destroy a dialogue. The voices behind the
> Bradford/Hellier
> events, for example, I am cautious that they find there way back on to
> subvert
> dialogue here, with the goal of devolution and chaos.
>
>
John:

Bradford intrigues me, more than Hellier.  I've had a bit of interaction
with Glenn, offlist, that doesn't quite fit your analysis of "goal of
devolution and chaos".  In fact, it seems to be something quite the opposite
in fact.

Arlo:


> There are other practices to condemn, as I've been reminded, such as the
> use of
> avatars to threaten or assault another person. So my point isn't that
> because
> the self is a plurality that there is nothing to condemn, but that the
> chase
> after a "real self" only leads to frustration.
>
> John:

Well, taken with the proverbial grain of salt, it can also be quite
enlightening as well.  I have a very "out of the box" idea of this topic,
which I've been wondering how to introduce and you are inadvertently goading
me into figuring out a way to do it.  You goader you!

John