Michael writes:
> But the left doesn't have particularly good logic/wisdom about individuals and individualism.
At last we agree. LOL
> The vast majority of people I have met, meanwhile, treasure it and would never contemplate giving it up.
And a recent post showed that a majority of people in the United States believe in angels. Belief in something does not make it true. The fact that so many people will not give up the illusion of permanent self shows how hard the work ahead will be.
> The problem, you say, lies in the worldview of ordinary individuals, who fetishize and internalize ideas like
"consumer."
What they do is attach to the concept of consume in order to bolster an illusory sense of permanent self. If I am a consumer, then I must have self, since I can conceive of myself desiring/consuming. For example: I was hungry about an hour ago and ate my lunch. I am no longer hungry. If we define a person as having permanent self on the evidence of the presence of desire, then I would have ceased to exist once my hunger/desire ceased to exist. But here I am typing away. Clearly, the presence of desire cannot be evidence for the existence of a permanent self.
> "Consumer" is an label imposed upon us by the masters of the institutions of illegitimate power.
It is also a label eagerly clung to by a great number of people. The label "consumer" gives a false sense of continuity to random desires. With the concept of "consumer," a person is able to bring imagined order to the fluid nature of human existence. A consumer is a person who likes particular brands, particular foods, particular everything. Since (so the illusion goes) I can articulate a specific UNCHANGING set of wants and preferences, there must be a particular UNCHANGING self producing these wants and preferences. Thus is humanity set off down the pernicious road of individualism.
Also, your profession of sociology needs permanent selves in order to exist. What would/could you study if people were understood as being empty (in the Buddhist sense).
> Mature (sociologically realistic) individualism is a very good and precious thing.
If by "mature sociological realistic individualism" you mean an outlook that accepts the fluid and interdependent nature of reality, then I agree. Butif you mean some interlocked matrix composed of distinct individuals then I disagree.
> As Marx (unlike so many of his later followers) knew, cultivation of the necessary conditions for bringing this quality to the forefront for the masses was the essence of the socialist project, which is supposed to launch
real human history by ending our benighted pre-history.
The benighted knowledge that must be ended is the Western/Abrahamic notion of permanent self. Had Marx been familiar with Eastern thought I doubt he would have made this fundamental mistake. What is discouraging is that so many of his followers who have greater access to Eastern wisdom and thought continue to perpetuate his myopia.
> I say it again: You are simply wrong about individualism.
Cling, Baby, Cling!!! LOL.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister