4 ms·

> Illich defined conviviality as “autonomous and creative > intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons > with their environment.” He

> Illich defined conviviality as “autonomous and creative > intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons > with their environment.” He contrasted this to “the > conditioned response of persons to the demands made upon > them by others” from above and afar in the name of > advancing progress. For someone who claims to criticize "Western" thought, this appears to be quite deeply steeped in a particular Western prejudice, namely that conviviality contrasts with order and obedience. From a Confucian perspective, they are one and the same - the "demands made upon them by others" are the very basis enabling people to engage with society and to therefore realize themselves as moral subjects. Without the demands of productivity (or, equivalently, the demands of effective statecraft), conviviality is therefore impossible, or, at the very least, meaningless.

narinxas 3y ago
he's a westerner, clearly; nobody has contested this. it's interesting how you not see any distinction between an autonomous creative impulse from the self outwards to the community and environment AND the enviroment prompting some person who was taught a conditioned response already to enact certain behavior. the difference is between "inner impulse from the individual outwards to their environment" and "external environment draws out a conditioned response from within the individual" but how you say that Confucian (i.e. chinese) thought is different but also not really is ver interesting. considering "freedom with responsability" as the highest value in contrast with "harmony with your surroundings"
- indigo945 3y ago
  > it's interesting how you not see any distinction between an autonomous > creative impulse from the self outwards to the community and environment AND > the enviroment prompting some person who was taught a conditioned response > already to enact certain behavior. Of course I see it, but, again, understanding this as a meaningful distinction is a cultural prejudice. Besides, in Confucian thought, moral behavior is the result of consciously cultivating moral feelings, in at least partial contrast to following spontaneous impulses. Some Confucian thinkers, like Mencius, do believe that humans have an innately good and moral inclination that precedes conscious learning, but even Mencius does not consider this to be a stable moral foundation to stand on. Van Norden, in his translation of Mencius, comments on a dialogue between Mencius and a student that although impulsive moral > inclinations manifest themselves spontaneously in everyone to a certain > degree, cultivation is necessary to fully develop them. Part of this > cultivation is using one’s heart, whose function (literally, “office”) is > “reflecting” [...]. What is the “it” the heart will “get” if it reflects? > Zhu Xi says it is the Pattern of whatever things or affairs one > encounters; to “get it” is to understand how things are and how they > should be. [1] This pattern (the Taiji, in Zhu Xi's parlance) is, of course, highly hierarchical. And it is, as I think becomes clear here, not just the correct and natural order of the cosmos, but also the fundamental requirement to correctly process one's own (social) impulses. Without this moral cultivation, man is no better than an animal, slave to his own desires. To wit, it's not about "freedom with responsibility", it's about "freedom through responsibility": (consciously) conditioned responses are the very form liberation takes. As an aside: I deliberately didn't say "Chinese" thought, as Daoism - without a doubt a Chinese philosophy - turns this idea on its head, advocating to free man not through, but from conviviality. [1]: Van Norden 2008: Mengzi. With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. P. 156.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
UncleOxidant 3y ago
What about this quote of Illich from the article: > “I consider conviviality to be individual freedom realized in personal interdependence and, as such, an intrinsic ethical value,” he wrote in “Tools for Conviviality.” He doesn't seem to define conviviality outside of community or to put it another way, community seems to be an important requirement for conviviality. This stands in contrast to modern western individualism.

narinxas 3y ago

he's a westerner, clearly; nobody has contested this. it's interesting how you not see any distinction between an autonomous creative impulse from the self outwards to the community and environment AND the enviroment prompting some person who was taught a conditioned response already to enact certain behavior. the difference is between "inner impulse from the individual outwards to their environment" and "external environment draws out a conditioned response from within the individual" but how you say that Confucian (i.e. chinese) thought is different but also not really is ver interesting. considering "freedom with responsability" as the highest value in contrast with "harmony with your surroundings"

indigo945 3y ago
> it's interesting how you not see any distinction between an autonomous > creative impulse from the self outwards to the community and environment AND > the enviroment prompting some person who was taught a conditioned response > already to enact certain behavior. Of course I see it, but, again, understanding this as a meaningful distinction is a cultural prejudice. Besides, in Confucian thought, moral behavior is the result of consciously cultivating moral feelings, in at least partial contrast to following spontaneous impulses. Some Confucian thinkers, like Mencius, do believe that humans have an innately good and moral inclination that precedes conscious learning, but even Mencius does not consider this to be a stable moral foundation to stand on. Van Norden, in his translation of Mencius, comments on a dialogue between Mencius and a student that although impulsive moral > inclinations manifest themselves spontaneously in everyone to a certain > degree, cultivation is necessary to fully develop them. Part of this > cultivation is using one’s heart, whose function (literally, “office”) is > “reflecting” [...]. What is the “it” the heart will “get” if it reflects? > Zhu Xi says it is the Pattern of whatever things or affairs one > encounters; to “get it” is to understand how things are and how they > should be. [1] This pattern (the Taiji, in Zhu Xi's parlance) is, of course, highly hierarchical. And it is, as I think becomes clear here, not just the correct and natural order of the cosmos, but also the fundamental requirement to correctly process one's own (social) impulses. Without this moral cultivation, man is no better than an animal, slave to his own desires. To wit, it's not about "freedom with responsibility", it's about "freedom through responsibility": (consciously) conditioned responses are the very form liberation takes. As an aside: I deliberately didn't say "Chinese" thought, as Daoism - without a doubt a Chinese philosophy - turns this idea on its head, advocating to free man not through, but from conviviality. [1]: Van Norden 2008: Mengzi. With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. P. 156.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

UncleOxidant 3y ago

What about this quote of Illich from the article: > “I consider conviviality to be individual freedom realized in personal interdependence and, as such, an intrinsic ethical value,” he wrote in “Tools for Conviviality.” He doesn't seem to define conviviality outside of community or to put it another way, community seems to be an important requirement for conviviality. This stands in contrast to modern western individualism.