From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 25 2005 - 04:57:08 BST
Mark, Robert, Ian, Ham, Platt, All,
First, Robert, I too appreciate your chiming in. Glad you are onboard, and hope
you find value in continue to contribute. I think you've nailed Pirsig's
position (one I agree with). In fact, he too uses the computer analogy of
"software" in discussing this very thing (in a previous post to Platt I've
posted the full related paragraphs). (On a side note to you and MSH, I've read
that the "brain" in every age is metaphorically describe by virtue of the
latest "technology" of that age. A steam engine, a switchboard, a computer, and
now, more and more, we see the brain being metaphorically described by "the
Net". And not just one brain, in the case of 'distributed cognition', for
example. Just food for thought.) At any rate, Robert, the rest is certainly not
directed towards you.
Getting back to the whole "Me" thing, what "gets me" in this whole "quest for
the Me" is that Pirsig was very elaborate and clear about his views on the
emergent relation of the "self-analogue" from the social semiotic level. I've
posted at least a dozen or so complete paragraphs from Lila and ZMM that very
clearly lay out Pirsig's position.
Now, I don't care that people disagree with Pirsig. I personally disagree with
several of his observations. But when these people act like they've never, ever
HEARD of the "collective conscious", social semiosis (okay, the term maybe not,
but the concept is outlined in Pirsig's own words), or the fact that the "I" is
an "optical delusion of consciousness, carried over and solidified into a
social semiotic" (my consolidation) within the MOQ it ASTOUNDS me. It was one
of the first things I gleaned from ZMM years ago, what (I think, Ant or someone
maybe can clarify) is the fundamental relation between the MOQ and the Buddha.
Or when it is acted like the idea is some outdated Marxist (Heaven forbid!!)
idea, or that the very concept "denigrates the individual", I am just
perplexed. Pirsig's words very carefully outline the evolutionary, dialectial
relation between the individual and the social. He very carefully spells out
that the "self" is simply a useful analogue, a point of reference in a social
semioticly learned set of cultural analogues.
He very carefully (and likely Ham disagress with all this "carefully" talk)
discusses just how and why the individual and freedom "value" and/or "matter",
in this evolutionary metaphysics.
We can agree on this, or we can argue about this, but this constant reversion to
"I belong to the MD, but I've never heard of this thing called 'collective
consciousness', isn't that just Marxist pseudo-babble?" is quite frustrating.
As I've said, I've posted to both Ham and Platt at least a dozen or so full
paragraphs where Pirsig details this. If you think my take on his words is
wrong, or if you think Pirsig is wrong, I am game for talk. But let's drop the
whole "collective consciousness? my gosh, what's that?" stuff, eh? Pirsig was
very clear on the subject.
Arlo
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 : Mon Jul 25 2005 - 05:40:13 BST