[Platt] If you've ever "heralded" the individual the references are few and far between compared your heralding of the almighty collective.
[Arlo] You keep dragging this back into a mire I already told you is just more of the same-old "man v. collective" nonsense. Even above, you presuppose that one could herald one while omitting the other. I've said countless times, the "self" is a social phenomenon that arises from the confluence of social participation (the assimilation of the collective consciousness) and the unique experience of the bounded organism. There is no "self" apart from the social world, nor is there a social world apart from individual selves. You insist on treating the two like opposing forces. I see them for what they are, the Yin and Yang from which the "self" (along with other concepts and intellections) derive. [Platt] The latter I do not herald because it is a lower form of evolution than the autonomy of individual. [Arlo] So now you're saying that there were societies before there were individuals? Praytell, when did the "individual" evolve from the social world? Give me a point in time before this happened, when there were no individuals, only societies? [Platt] Not equal in the MOQ, the social level being lower on the evolutionary scale. [Arlo] The social level is lower on the evolutionary scale than the intellectual level, not individuals. Unless you'd caret to answer the above? [Platt] No, Arlo ignoring the role of the inorganic and biological levels in the evolution of intellect. [Arlo] I ignore these? Seems to me in my last post I pointed to this directly. Biology arises from inorganic patterns. Social from biological, and intellectual from social. With each level mediating contact between those on its sides. In fact, I just wrote a reply to Craig that articulated an interesting theoretical parallel between the carbon atom's unique property that was "latched onto by Dynamic forces" that would explain, in good MOQ terms, the same process as it unfolded between the biological and social levels. Your accusations are either desperate, ill-conceived, or just plain idiotic. Which? [Platt] Before the singular individual Gutenberg.... [Arlo] Gutenberg did not act alone, but as part of a long historical dialogue, and his agency as part of this dialogue derived from his assimilating the collective consciousness of his culture. Had he not assimilated these social voices, he would have no voice of his own. [Platt] So do tell us how "intellection" begin? [Arlo] I am convinced that the social level began with the appearance of a neurobiological cluster that allowed early man the ability to share attention. >From here, man developed symbolic representations for these shared experiences. The carbon-property of these symbolic representations that intellect seized upon was, I'd argue, came from the time when man started thinking about thinking, when he began to think about the symbols as entities in and of themselves. This abstraction from practical experience into hypothetical inquiry is the starting point of "intellection". So I would argue. [Platt] All you are saying is Pirsig presupposes people. Well, golly gee. [Arlo] No, I am saying that Pirsig's voice has both agency and value ONLY because of the social dialogue of which it is part. [Arlo previously] This "war" between the "individual" and the "collective" is simply ridiculous. [Platt] See Pirsig about "battles" between the levels. [Arlo] Pirsig's tension is between the intellectual and social levels. Which leads me again to say, the war between the "individual" and "collective" is simply ridiculous. [Platt] No. He has made clear that intellect took over and dominated society in the U.S. beginning with Wilson and has made a holy mess of things because SOM that intellect uses has no provision for morals. [Arlo] Those damn liberals! We should turn back the clock and let social Victorian values rule! Or, you know, like Pirsig I think our lost opportunity was the hippie movement. Therein we had a chance at salvation. Neoconservativism and its regressive social morality? Talk about a holy mess... [Platt] I'll match your sociologists (if that's their claim to fame) with Locke, Jefferson and Hayek any day. [Arlo] The sociologists I mentioned all propose the same "intellect from social" emergence as Pirsig. Each highlight and articulate different processes involved. One would think you'd be truly interested in hearing about how other philosophers expounded upon this interesting area. Each of these are quite clear in their agreement with Pirsig that "our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived", and that "mind does not originate out of inorganic nature, but out of social patterns". 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/
