[Willblake2] It dawned on me why Arlo and I seem to be talking past each other when speaking of thinking and thoughts. I believe that Arlo is speaking about the Ego, which, as he states, comes from the reflection of oneself in others, in the external. Society does play a role in this. I would hate to think that Quality is evolving into a Super Ego.
As I stated earlier, we are not our thoughts. I now say, we are also certainly not our ego. The ego creates abstract principles (society) which are then deemed to be more important than personal ones. From this we get wars based on principles rather than greed, the former being much more destructive because it is unreal. Descartes' concept of thinking is also the Ego. He should have said "I have intent (or will), therefore I am". There are many layers to thinking besides the obvious peripheral directed forms. Most thinking we are not aware of until it becomes purposeful towards the outside. But it does happen, witness the sudden Eureka! Indeed, the righteous sense of being more humanitarian, more equal, more fair, more safe, are all constructs which are used to support the current PC war. They are all the Ego at work. I hesitate to define the Ego, I'm sure there is plenty on the Web. We are born with self, we create other as self. Cheers, Willblake2 On May 16, 2009, at 11:27:46 AM, "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[email protected]> wrote: [Ham] Arlo believes that society precedes intellect. [Arlo] Moreso, Pirsig believes this. Let's be clear about that. [Ham] John believes that non-human nature precedes both. [Arlo] As does Arlo. And moreso, as does Pirsig. Let's be clear about that. Inorganic-biological-social-intellectual. [Ham] What's wrong with Descartes' own conclusion: "I think, therefore I am"? Simply that it does not acknowledge the otherness of which his thought consists. [Arlo] There is nothing wrong with it per se, except when it is used to support a non-social view of intellect. Pirsig was taking this commonly used dictum and placing it in a larger context, or rather he was adding the context that must be there for it to hold as "true". [Ham] What Descartes MIGHT have said is: "I think, therefore something is self-evident." [Arlo] In order to "think", Descartes needed a language/culture. Once assimilated, "self-evident" is biased. "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived" (Pirsig). [Ham] But of course that's a logical truism, because nothing is more evident than one's thinking. [Arlo] I'd say Quality is. "Thinking" is an abstraction from the flow of experience, but since it derives from experience, I'd say that experience (Quality) precedes "thinking", and hence is "more evident". Nothing is more evident than the Quality-moment of NOW. [Ham] All this talk about a hierarchical reality evolving in time and producing an intellectual creature in the course of it is fraught with difficulty and paradox. [Arlo] Hardly. But in the end any "metaphysics" that ignores or contradicts or denies "evolving in time" is meaningless and irrelevant. 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/
