From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 03 2005 - 15:58:26 GMT
[Platt]
Yes, there are many ways to look at everything. But we both see that the
educational establishment is badly in need of reform.
[Arlo]
Yes, we agree on that.
[Platt previously]
Consciousness, awareness, Quality, experience -- all names for the same
phenomena -- was there from the beginning. From that beginning, all came
into being including you and me and the man over there behind the tree.
[Arlo]
If so, then you've just proved the collective consciousness of mankind.
Looks like you might be getting it after all.
[Platt]
I said consciousness, not collective consciousness. So now you are pumping
for collective Quality, collective experience, collective awareness? What
happened to your "unique proprietary experience?" (See below) Or are there
now two kinds of experience, that of individuals and that of communes?
[Arlo]
Yes, you said "consciousness". Was this one "consciousness", or a bunch of
"consciousnesses"? If it was "one", and included both "your" and "my"
consciousnesses (which you said were "there since the beginning"), then thank
you for making my point.
As for "two kinds of experience", yes, there are actual multiple kinds. To give
you a simplistic dichotomy, one kind is immediate and one kind is symbolic.
Semiosis' power comes from its ability to allow us to share experiences
symbolically.
[Arlo previously]
The idea stands, social level patterns are a higher level organism
than biological level organisms (people) on whose collective activity they
emerge, but are higher, and use biological beings to further their own
goals. The intellectual level emerges from the social level in the same
way.
[Platt]
Yes, but why?
[Arlo]
Because at any given moment, evolution was following DQ. Do you think that
evolution was scripted, predetermined? If so, how can it really by Dynamic? It
would just be following a previously known course.
As Pirsig says, there are many high Quality Dynamic innovations that fail
(inability to latch, etc.)on any given level. This says to me that the Dynamic
innovations that succeeded were not predetermined to do so. It says to me that
your foolish implication that "man" was somehow "destined" from the beginning
to be the Randian zenith of creation is woefully misrepresentative of Pirsig's
thoughts.
[Arlo previously]
If you deny this, show me where in Pirsig you get you opposition from?
[Platt]
I have, many times. You keep denying "someone has to be first."
[Arlo]
Only in your mind, Platt. I've said repeatedly that that "someone's" ability to
be first derives from the appropriation of the collective consciousness, and
emerges as the result of collective activity over historical time.
What I do is avoid the false separation between the "individual" and the
"collective". You want to paint me as being supportive only of the collective,
but this is not the case. What I am against is not the "individual" in the
Pirsigian sense, but the "individual" in the Randian sense.
As Pirsig says, "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They
originate out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out
of inorganic nature. And, as anthropologists know so well, what a mind thinks
is as dominated by social patterns as social patterns are dominated by
biological patterns and as biological patterns are dominated by inorganic
patterns." Amen, brother.
[Arlo previously]
Not at all. It is a socially constructed idea that comes from systems
ecology. It presents us with a better analogy for thinking about the
emergence of things than simply the "individual" as sole creator. Who the
"keystone species" may be depends on what patterns you are looking at.
Systems ecology provides a way to see the importance (the co-emergent
necessity) of both the "individual" and the "collective" at all MOQ levels.
[Platt]
Systems ecology?. Oh my God. Now we are just nameless, faceless ciphers in
Arlo's grand "system." The individuals in the system can come and go, but
it's the system that's uber alles. For "system" substitute "state" and/or
"workers' paradise" and you can see where Arlo's heart lies.
[Arlo]
See, that's that Randian charlatanism again. Systems ecology does not relagate
individuals in the system to useless or inconsequential. Indeed, quite the
OPPOSITE. It is systems ecology that tells us that killing wolves (because they
hunt our sheep) will devastate the ecology in untold, significant ways. It
says, wolves are a vital part of the ecology and should not be removed from it.
Destroying part of an ecology has untold impact on the evolution of the system.
Just like destroying one individual may have untold impact on the evolution of
the society.
If you think the metaphor is inappropriate, try to remember that the next time
Pirsig talks about "cultures" as having an "immune system". I like Pirsig's
powerful metaphors, but since the move away from your Randian Weltanschauung, I
guess it makes sense for you to ignore them.
On a side note, Pirsig also uses the systems ecology metaphor to describe the
mental patterns constituting an "individual". Lila, he says, is a "complex
ecology of patterns moving toward Dynamic Quality." An ecology of patterns that
"do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate out of society." Amen
again, brother.
[Platt]
Yes, so I can lose a few blood cells (individuals) but the body (the
state) will go on. Like in systems, a few individuals here and there are
dispensable so long as the system goes on.. Remind you of 20th century
history anyone?
[Arlo]
Ah, again with the Randian charlatanism that ignores what I said in favor of
trumpeting up fear.
[Platt]
Well, if you want to deny or ignore what Pirsig said for the sake of your
own way of seeing things, fine by me. I value your individual right to
speak freely above the rights of collectives of any stripe -- state,
commune, system, organization, ideology, association -- whatever,
including of course, the MD. :-).
[Arlo]
Who's ignoring Pirsig. He's said repeatedly in Lila that social patterns are
metaphorically understandable as "organisms". All I said was that in the one
sentance snippet you provided from his annotations to Lila's Child, was that
I'd want to see that statement in context before I ignore what he went to
length to say in Lila.
But, that's a very interesting rhetorical shift of that you wrote back, I must
add. Do they teach devious rhetorical tactics like that at the Limbaugh
Institute?
But I am continuing to see this misunderstanding of "collectives", as used by
Pirsig and myself. The "collective" referred to in the emergence of the
"individual" by the appropriation of the "collective consciousness" is the
mythos, the ongoing historical dialogue of culture, containing the voices of
social activity shaping cultural consciousness over historical time.
The "collective activity" of individuals that gives rise to the emergence of
intellectual patterns (such as calculus) is not "the state" or communes, but
the sum total of human activity within a culture. When Pirsig says that a city
emerged out of collective biological activity, he's not saying a "group of
people made it", but the from the entirety of activity of people emerges a
higher level organism.
When I say that "calculus" emerges over historical time from collective
activity, I am not saying a "commune" determines it, but that the collective
activity of individuals participating in the activity of calculus give voice
and shape to an emergent pattern larger than any one individual voice. This
pattern, then, becomes part of the collective consciousness, and structures the
individuals who appropriate it.
It is this dialectic between individual and collective activity, this dialectic
that gives rise to agency, this dialectic that allowed the emergence of
Liebniz, and this dialectic the contribution of his voice to the intellectual
pattern of calculus.
The ocean is contained within a single drop of rain. And many drops of rain make
the ocean. You CAN recognize the indispensible nature of both, the co-emergent
nature of both, and the wonders of the dialectic relationship without
belittling either. Only Randian charlatanism says appreciating the beauty of
the ocean demeans the value of a lone raindrop.
But you keep on shouting that that's what I'm doing...
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 : Sat Dec 03 2005 - 16:06:21 GMT