Big up to Ishmael

This started out as an email to Katie, but then it got a little long, so here it is.

So I've been reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It's about ... stuff. Science 'n philosophy 'n motorcycles and such. Larissa should read it -- there's a lot about how the "classical" (i.e. scientific) and "romantic" (which he defines as the opposite of scientific, but whatever) types need to be friends or some shit. Anyway, there's a quote in here that made me think of Daniel Quinn...

"It's sometimes argued that there's no real progress; that a civilization that kills multitudes in mass warfare, that polutes the land and oceans with ever larger quantities of debris, that destroys the dignity of individuals by subjecting them to a forced mechanized existence can hardly be called an advance over the simpler hunting and gathering and agricultural existence of prehistoric times. But this argument, though romatically appealing, doesn't hold up. The primitive tribes permitted far less individual freedom than does modern society. Ancient wars were committed with far less moral justification wthan modern ones. A technology that produces debris can find, and is finding, ways of disposing of it without ecological upset. And the schoolbook pictures of primitive man sometimes omit some of the detractions of his primitive life -- the pain, the disease, famine, the hard labor needed just to stay alive. From that agony of bare existence to modern life can be soberly described only as upward progress, and the sole agent for this progress is quite clearly reason itself."

Wow. This is some really flawed logic for a guy who's supposedly so intelligent that he had a schizophrenic break from reality. Let's break it down, shall we?

First of all, notice how he doesn't deny that "modern society" has problems -- ecological, social, and otherwise. Basically, he's confirming what Daniel Quinn has been saying, that we haven't manage to "invent" a way of living that works for people. It has nothing to do with one society being more or less "complex" than the other. It does have to do with the fact that tribes had a way of living that did work for people (as opposed to working for businesses). I don't think anyone is arguing that we should surrender all our marvelous gadgets and return to being farmers. Well, maybe some people are arguing that. But a far more effective argument is to focus on the fact that tribes had a way of living that worked, that wasn't ecologically destructive, that didn't force the majority of its members to live a "mechanized existence" with little or no dignity. "Hard labor needed just to survive"? Pain? Disease? Famine? Yeah, it's a good thing we got rid of all that, huh? And I don't think any sarcastic commentary is required regarding "wars committed with moral justification". Plus, I don't know what schoolbook this guy's been reading, but in all the schoolbooks I've seen, "primitive" man is described in exactly the same way old Pirsig described them -- living lives that are nasty, brutish and short, to coin a phrase. Again I say (sarcastically), I guess it's a good thing we did away with that kind of business, huh? So that leaves us with his argument of "individual freedom", which also doesn't really make sense. So we have more individual freedom to lead lives that are mechanized and without dignity? Community spirit should not be viewed as the confinement or restriction of indivudal needs. In fact, any community that attempts to function in this way will inevitably fail -- how could it succeed? A community continues to exist solely because the people in it want it to exist. Who would want to live in a commnuity where their individual needs couldn't be met?

So now we're left with the biggest lie of all: that "reason" is what led us out of the darkness of primitive man and into the light of modern society. So members of tribes lacked "reason"? They weren't able to make tools, buildings, etc.? Really now. If that were true, we wouldn't be here. Our ancestors would've died a long time ago.

Yep, this sure did piss me off.

Oh, and in case you haven't heard of Daniel Quinn, check out his site. Then read his books. Now.