Hi Arlo OK, let's say I buy most of the below. However I still have a concern about the langauge and the implied values. Take the USSR example. Where a social order used a language of social ends to justify the sacrificing of individuals to such ends (and falsely too as it turned out as the ends were not really attained or sustained). How would you see such error being avoided in future? I think that there are clear benefits to valuing individuals? Perhaps as sources of high level DQ.
David M > [DM] > We do obviously have to recognise that prior to > individual-human/social-human/intellectual-human emergence we were simply > animals. > > [Arlo] > I'm not sure what you mean with these three? Specifically, the first. If > you > say "prior to social patterns and prior to intellectual patterns, 'we' > were > simply animals (biological patterns)", then this is straight-forward to > me. > And, prior to intellect level (but after the emergence of social > patterns), > 'we' did not exist in the sense of the self-as-intellectual construct. > > [DM] > Are you failing to recognise thatwe need to see that individuals can bring > about change and make a real difference, otherwise does not the system > dominate? > > [Arlo] > Not at all, David. But the ability to enact change derives from collective > activity. I do not separate the two into antithetical poles. Human agency > is > not opposed to social patterns, it comes from social patterns. And again I > stress that both "individual" and "collective" are merely labels of focus. > > I also think we need to differentiate between any given social pattern and > the > social level. The "system", as you refer to it, likely consists of the > rules > and governance and so on of a particular society. But the social level > itself > is not "the system", the social level is the emergent interactions, shared > history, cultural dialogue, metaphorical frames, etc. that make the use of > a > symbolic code possible. > > [DM] > Sure but is not the individual more dynamic than the unconscious > structures of > social reproduction? > > [Arlo] > To answer this, David, I need to again move away from this notion of > "individual v. society". I think all patterns within a level are capable > of > responding to Quality on that level, e.g., biological patterns are capable > of > responding Dynamically to Quality on the biological level. That said, I > think > the "self-as-concept", an intellectual pattern, is certainly capable of > respond > Dynamically to Quality on the individual level. > > Here you raise the spectre of "consciousness", and I admit I am more > comfortable with "experience". That is, I don't relegate "experience" to > human > affairs. For me, an atom "experiences" Quality on the inorganic level, and > is > capable of responding to this Quality within the bounds of the inorganic > level. > Even with Pirsig's notion of the "collective consciousness" I would prefer > "collective experience". Consciousness, as I see it, derives from the > illusion > of "self-as-primary-reality". > > Where would you place "consciousness"? Did it predate the intellectual > level? > Is it biological? Social? Obviously, I place it on the intellectual level, > as > an emergent concept deriving from social participation. I think Pirsig > leans > this way to, when he says "mind originates out of society", this is what > he is > saying. > > [DM] > can society innovate and create a new type of shelf without the dynamic > capacity of the individual? > > [Arlo] > I'd restate. Can society innovate and create a new type of shelf without > the > capacity of social patterns being able to respond Dynamically to Quality > on the > social level? No. Each level must contain a static and Dynamic interplay > for > both stability and evolution. > > I also think we hit a point of anthropocentrism that is unavoidable. Of > course > we can't see anything greater than us. Pirsig reminds us that two people > asking > whether or not anything greater than them existed is like two blood cells > asking whether anything greater than they exist. Of course they can't see > the > human body. And its also scary for people to think they are red-blood > cells in > larger organism they can never comprehend or see. > > I think all we can do is live and act and dream and be as we are meant to > do, > and leave the "we are the champions" karaoke for the lonely, scared old > men at > the bar. > > [DM] > Sure, but in rejecting SOM we should not reject the way DQ emerges via the > evolved capacities and evolved potential of collections of higher level > patterns from atoms to molecules to DNA to plants to animalsto > individualised > social intellectual animals called human beings. > > [Arlo] > Of course not. But what we call a "human being" is actually an > amalgamation of > four levels of patterns, with each level capable of responding to Quality > on > that particular level. The "self-as-concept" part of the human being is an > intellectual pattern that arises from social participation. It does not > exist > apart from social participation. This is all I am saying. > > [DM] > I think there is no getting away from the co-emergence of individuality, > sociality, tool inventing capacity and intellectuality to give us human > beings. > > [Arlo] > Agree. > > [DM] > Yes my danger is slipping back to SOM with this langauge, your danger is > not > recognising the reality of individual experience in its crucially dynamic > as > well as static aspects. This is why MOQ improves on the SOM assumptions of > both > the political left and right. > > [Arlo] > I hope what I wrote above clarifies this. And this has nothing to do with > "politics" as far as I am concerned. Social agreements on how to organize > a > society have nothing to do with the social origins of mind. Nor does the > recognition that "agency" is enabled by "structure" (and vice versa) have > anything to do with placing one artificially dominant over the other with > regards to politics. As soon as man began socializing in our distant past > he > gained both "agency" and acquired "structuration". > > The self is a social construct. This says nothing to support politics of > any > kind. It does not tell us how much taxes to collect, which wars to wage, > or > whether or not gays should marry and pot should be legal. > > > > > 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/ > 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/
