Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cohousing and Televison: a Classic Clash of Values

[Howard Landman (howard]

> And the point of what I've been saying is that the choice to
> be heavily involved in anything (not just TV) leads to people
> greatly reducing their involvement in other things.  It isn't
> a problem with TV.  It's a problem with choice-making (or
> dependence).

Michael, you appear to be trying to be rational about this and other things
I've seen you post about recently.  But you keep falling into the same
mind-trap over and over, so I feel obliged to point it out.  It's what
S. I. Hayakawa calls "The Two-Valued Orientation" (cf. his book "Language
In Thought And Action"):

        In terms of a single desire, there are only two values,
        roughly speaking: things that gratify or things that frustrate
        that desire.  If we are starving, there are only two kinds of
        things in the world so far as we are concerned at the moment:
        edible things and inedible things.  If we are in danger, there
        are the things that we fear and the things that may help and
        protect us.  At such basic levels of existence, in our absorption
        in self-defense or food-seeking, there are, in terms of those
        limited desires, only two categories possible.  Life at such
        levels can be folded neatly down the middle, with all good on
        one side, all bad on the other, and *everything* *is* *accounted*
        *for*, because things that are irrelevant to our interests
        escape our notice altogether.

The two-valued orientation assumes that everything is either black or white.
Something is either "addictive" (in which case it addicts everyone who
comes into contact with it) or "not addictive" (in which case it addicts
no one).  It's

        an *internalization* of the laws of Aristotelian logic, which
        say that:

            A is A (law of identity)
            Everything is either A or not-A (law of the excluded middle)
            Nothing is both A and not-A (law of noncontradiction)
        
        These "laws of logic" frequently mislead us.  Aristotelian logic
        suggests that is something is "good", it must be "all good"
        (identity); that which is "not good" must be "bad" (exclusion);
        and that nothing can be "good" and "bad" at the same time
        (contradiction).  In real life, however, good and bad are
        usually mixed, and it is seldom possible to impose such simplistic
        categories upon experience.  The difficulty with Aristotle's
        "laws of logic" is that while they seem to be sensible, in fact
        they are inadequate to deal with reality, forcing us to press it
        into narrow confines.  

In Boolean logic or most areas of mathematics, Aristotle makes sense.  But
in real life a problem arises when one tries to make syllogisms such as:

        Everything is either addictive or not addictive.
        Some people are not addicted by TV.
        Therefore, TV is not addictive.

This form of argument simply fails to produce true, meaningful, useful results.
The first premise is flatly false.  But it seems to me that you have used this
kind of argument here at least ten times recently, often several times in the
same posting.

False two-valued logic is often used by dictatorships and religions -
"Those who aren't with us are against us!".  It leaves no room for anyone
in the middle, anyone who might have doubts:

        Discussion of matters affecting our existence and that of the
        nation must cease altogether.  Anyone who dares to question
        the rightness of the National Socialist outlook will be branded
        as a traitor.
                Herr Sauckel, Nazi Governor of Thuringia, June 20, 1933

        Everyone not using the greeting "Heil Hitler", or using it
        only occasionally and unwillingly, shows he is an opponent
        of the Fuehrer or a pathetic turncoat.
                Labor Front chiefs in Saxony, December 5, 1937

        Everyone in Germany is a National Socialist - the few outside
        the party are either lunatics or idiots.
                Adolf Hitler, Klagenfurt Austria, April 4, 1938

        Enmesh a single claw and the bird is caught ... You cannot
        eliminate one basic assumption, one substantial part of
        the philosophy of Marxism (it is as if it were a block of
        steel) without abandoning objective truth, without falling
        into the arms of the bourgeois-reactionary falsehood.
                Lenin, quoted by Anatol Rapoport
        
        He (Joseph Smith) was either a prophet of God, divinely called,
        properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest
        frauds the world has ever seen, there is no middle ground.
                Doctrines of Salvation 1:188 

In contrast, Hayakawa describes "The Multi-Valued Orientation", which allows
that there are degrees of grey.  It also allows that there is often more
than one dimension to a problem, whereas the two-valued orientation usually
restricts its view to a single dimension.  For example, having money is
good and having food is good.  Is buying food good or bad?  Well, it depends
on your level of hunger, your financial goals, the kind of food, etc.
Most actions are compromises among a set of differing goals and values.
So are most consensus decision in cohousing.

Even in math, binary logic is just one of many kinds.  There is fuzzy
logic, there is the infinite-valued logic of probablilities (which you
have implied that you know and understand and others don't :-), there are
logics which incorporate undecidability or incomparability.  In many of
these systems the Aristotelian laws don't apply.  In Zen logic there is
even the answer "mu" which unasks the question.

In an earlier post, you argued that people should work on internal mental
development "instead of" removing the sources of addiction.  But this is
a false dichotomy.  Doing one does not prevent doing the other, in fact
may help it.  Consider the typical monastery, where many distractions are
removed so that people may more easily turn within.  Many Christians say the
bible directs them to "flee from temptation" (although that exact phrase does
not actually occur in the bible, the general sense appears multiple places
such as Gen 39:12 and 1 Timothy 6:11).  Not stand around trying to resist it,
but actively remove one's self from the source.  Anyway, there is a world of
difference between "instead of" and "in addition to".  It's the difference
between saying "I have the one true answer and everything else is completely
wrong", and saying "I have something useful and helpful to offer".

Namaste,

        Howard A. Landman
        River Rock Commons
        Fort Collins, Colorado
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l