From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 05:26:44 BST
Platt ..
Said, in jest, "that terrorist over there by the camel"
To my certain knowledge camels are pretty thin on the ground in
Beeston, Leeds, West Yorkshire, England :-)
Anyway ... your second para graph is full of thinly veiled, but
anonymous, crticisms of other MoQ'ers views. Would you care to
elaborate as to who is ..
"mesmerized by social pattern values, ... to many it appears we're all
helpless captives" ?
Where did you get this idea from "all human evolution depended on
unique thoughts by individuals" That little word "all" makes it
manifestly not true in so many ways. Your view is just too "atomic"
the behaviour of the whole just cannot be explained adequately only by
the sum of behaviours of the individuals - even though it clearly has
some dependence on it. Substitute "some" for "all" at least.
Ian
On 7/22/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi Ham,
>
> Thanks for introducing this topic. I'm with you. I think "collective
> consciousness" is a meaningless abstraction because human inhabitants of
> this world have never been of "one mind" As you point out, "intellect is
> an attribute of the individual." Just as we all have fingerprints but
> every fingerprint is individual and different, so too we all use similar
> symbols to represent our experience but every experience is individual and
> different. Certainly each of us is influenced by our respective cultures,
> using commonly understood symbols to express ourselves to others--family,
> friends and foes. But to say that my unique experiences and intellectual
> patterns combined with yours and
> somehow comprise a "collective consciousness" stretches credulity.
>
> It does amaze me, as I'm sure it does you, that so many contributors to
> this site seem mesmerized by social pattern values, or as you put it, "the
> social/cultural reservoir." To many it appears we're all helpless captives
> of this reservoir, unable to have a single unique thought of our own and
> dependent for guidance on those with superior intellects (usually self-
> selected). Of course, the fact that all human evolution depended on
> unique thoughts by individuals apparently escapes them, including the guy
> who came up with the idea of the "collective consciousness" in the first
> place.
>
> So yes, I accept your challenge. Count me in, although don't expect me to
> explain consciousness any better than those smarter than me have
> been able to do. For starters, I believe consciousness to be a force in
> the cosmos, an energy field of value potential. But, proving it is another
> matter. :-)
>
> Best, Platt
>
>
> The Essentialist Challenge:
> > I think we are long overdue for an exploration of Consciousness itself --
> > not in the collective or historical sense, but as the uniquely human
> > process we all depend on to convert sensory awareness into our tangible
> > experience of the physical world.
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 22 2005 - 06:00:29 BST