[Platt] Yes or no. Do you agree or disagree with this statement. Flat out answer please. "A tribe can change its values only PERSON by PERSON and SOMEONE has to be FIRST" i.e., ORIGINATE.
[Arlo] Yes. I've never disagreed with this. I just emphasize the process by which that "person" achieves this agency to act, namely through the appropriation of the collective unconscious and the bounded proprietary experience of her/his being. [Platt] See meaning of "originate" explained above. [Arlo] You explain nothing except say you "can't skip a level". According to my MW, "originate" means "to come into being". We can look at the following three quotes from Pirsig to see that is what he means. "The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I think... " "The seventeenth century French culture exists ... therefore I am." "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate out of society". As you can see, Descates "comes into being" from the social level. He "is" by virtue of this collective assimilation alongside his bounded proprietary experience. He "thinks" because of culture. He "is" because of culture. So we take both, "A tribe can change its values only PERSON by PERSON" and see that that "person" comes into being because of the tribe. Social and individual. Collective and proprietary. This ties exactly into the premise of the self I've been articulating, the one drawn from the full MOQ context. "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived". Note he does not say "influenced". He says "always derived". Always. And he doesn't say "individually derived". Here again we see the half of Pirsig you ignore, the half that shows that the origins (and indeed content) of mind are social. So, again, do you agree or disagree with each of these quotes. I've answered you, now can you answer me? Or do you need to redefine "originate" in order to with Pirsig? When mental patterns originate out of society, Pirsig here is talking directly about the assimilation of the collective consciousness. What make each individual different in that this occurs side-by-side a bounded existence. We are both social (where our mental patterns originate from) and individual (experience unique to our boundedness). If you remove the social collective from the equation, no more "selves". No more agency to act on the social OR intellectual levels. We would be nothing more than biological animals. Thus the "self" is both "social" and "unique", both "collective" and "proprietary". Indeed, it is a metaphoric contact-point between our social assimilation and our unique experience as a bounded being. And all the quotes I've given (and you've provided) supports that. And again, this is why you and Ham have such a laughable disagreement over the MOQ. You each only see the half of the MOQ you want to see, blinded by your war. And its why you so astonishingly use one quote from Pirsig to refute another. Honestly, I have never seen anything like that in all my days. Now I am done. 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/
