From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 04 2005 - 14:43:55 GMT
> [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.
I don't think either you or I or any human being was there at the
beginning. But consciousness was. Does that clarify my position?
> 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.
The key word is "share." As Pirsig points out, everyone has a different
(individual) life experience. But sharing does not make for a collective
experience, e.g., you'll never know what it's like to be kissed by you.
> [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.
Yes, we agree. Except "evolution" wasn't following DQ. Individuals were --
whether atoms, molecules, organelles, ants or chimps. And someone had to
be first. Then change, evolution, occurred.
> [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.
I'm not talking about "ability to be first." I'm talking about being
first. Everything and everybody has the ability. But it's the one, single,
solitary "someone" who actually does it that makes the difference.
> 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.
I think you have a distorted sense of the "Randian sense." Nowhere did
Rand say that other people weren't around when an individual created
something new. Mostly they got in the way.
> [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.
See, there goes your commune thinking again. Does systems ecology tell you
anything about an individual wolf? Or just "wolves" in general? Does not
your ecology also say that deer have to "harvested" at times to preserve
the ecology? What of the concern for the individual then?
> 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.
Now you're talking. Tell me. Why does destroying an individual have an
impact on society? Could it be you are making my point about the vital
importance of the individual, the first to mutate, the first to look at
the heavens through a telescope, the first to write a metaphysics based on
the premise that reality is Quality?
> [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.
Doesn't address the metaphor -- just a blanket ad hominem.
> [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?
Another blanket ad hominem. Are you really getting that desperate, Arlo?
> 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...
Well, if you want to compare people to raindrops, so be it. It would never
occur to me -- and I hope to very few others -- to propose an analogy in
which people are compared to drops of rain. Why not just think of us as no
more than grains of sand and be done with it?
Platt
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 : Sun Dec 04 2005 - 15:04:14 GMT