From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 06 2005 - 13:09:45 GMT
[Platt]
Perhaps before going any further you could clear up the difference between
"society" and "collective." I don't see how why a "collective" of
individuals doesn't equate to a "society" of individuals. In other words,
what's the difference between "collective consciousness" and "social
consciousness?"
[Arlo]
Well, using your words above I don't think there is a difference. But there is a
difference between "collective consciousness" and "society". The "collective
consciousness" is formed historically, over time, from living beings
communicating socially. Pirsig equates with language, but what one has to
understand is that language just doesn't "name things", but gives us the very
foundation for thought. In this sense, the "collective consciousness" could be
thought of as the "shared historical, symbolically represented experiences
within culture".
When an "individual living being" is born into culture, and appropriates this
"collective consciousness", it is NOT a matter of a separate intelligence
simply listening to the voices of others. That "individual living being's"
first thoughts ARE the voices of others. And, over time, those voices structure
the way that being's "individual" immediate experiences are cataloged. The
"individual" (as the software program) comes into being by the act of
internalizing, or appropriating, the voices of others.
These voices are, to be sure, not necessarily "marked" as the "voice of anyone
in particular". Indeed, most of these voices are not. When Pirsig says that
"This Cartesian "Me" is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This body
on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same
program, the same "Me," which doesn't belong to either of them. The "Me's" are
simply a program format.", this is what he is getting at. "Me" is a feature of
the collective consciousness that has emerged as it is over historical time,
maybe not even deliberately, and yet we see it as some sort of objective
reality. It is not, it is a socially, historically evolved part of our
collective consciousness, that is a part of the software program running in our
heads, that in turn structures the way our immediate experience is cataloged
(or symbolically represented).
When Pirsig says that he and Lila, or Platt and Arlo, are "variations of the
same program, the same "Me," which doesn't belong to either of them", he is
saying that "his consciousness" and "Lila's consciousness" are not wholly
distict, but "variations" (due to immediate individual experience) of the "same
program" (the collective consciousness).
"Society" (or "commune") implies a particular set of social patterns, existing
in a particular definable historical moment. The "collective consciousness" is
not contained by any society, but stretches through societies over historical
time. "Commune", even more so, implies the deliberate actions of a select group
of people. If you wanted to use another word for collective consiousness, or
social consciousness, I suppose "culture" would do, but that word has specific
associations these days that would have to be dealt with, or "mythos",
providing one understands that this is more than simpley a library of myths. It
is, as Pirsig says, the "mythos" from which the "me" originates.
Maybe that helps a bit, maybe not. But for now, work bekons...
Arlo
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 06 2005 - 14:37:02 GMT