Hi Arlo,

Still sounds like Ego to me.  What are we without the social level?  I don't 
believe
I am arguing against Pirsig, but supporting his heirarchy.

I was studying an anthill the other day.  A layover from my youth.  I can say 
that 
I am not as malicious as I used to be, perhaps have grown up.  I was watching
the paths made by the ants as they went to various places for food (the 
peripheral
consciousness), interacting with the environment (the Ego perhaps).  Each ant
(nerve cell) communicating with another in a stream of movement (a thought).
They would then disappear into a hole, symbolizing the epicenter of where
the conscious awareness goes into the subconscious inner self.

I noticed that if I put a barrier in the place of one of those streams, it would
become disorganized, but when I came back after some time, the stream had
adjusted around the barrier and was still fulfilling the same purpose.  This
I akin to us trying to change the way we think through external means.  It is
difficult because the external self is dictated by the inner self, the anthill
underground.  If I were to add something containing borax, that the ants
would take in to their home, I would have a different consequence.  This 
is akin to the introduction of drugs (legal or illegal).  The outer behavior 
or interactions of the hill would change drastically, perhaps even disappear.
Sooner or later a new hill would arise, with the same behavior.  Take the 
drugs away, and things revert back.

Arlo is talking about the peripheral mind, that behavior above ground, and
claiming that the subconscious thinking is also societal, control by 
language.  This cannot be true, it is the other way around.  A society
has a completely different consciousness which we are not privy
to, in the same way each individual nerve is not privy to our thoughts.
While we can change the connections of the nerves, we cannot
change their biological nature.

If all we are are our thoughts, what are we when we are listening to music
without thought?  I believe Arlo brought up a similar example with food.
I suppose the argument would go that is: we are with thoughts, the music
is the social level, and we are appreciating it through language.  
However, one does not have to understand music to appreciate it.
I interacts with the inner self, that is separate (in a continuous) manner
from the outer (ego) self.  I can ski down a slope thoughtlessly,
but I am still there.

We are the sum total of our awareness thoughts, our subconscious
thoughts, our interaction with the environment, the beating of our
hearts, the intelligence of our immune system, the thoughtless
passions, emotions, feelings that arise to form thoughts.  We are
so much more than our thoughts (or ego as I believe you state).

The problem with the notion that society dictates thought is that
individuals arise (especially in politics), that argue they have a
social solution to correct our inner selves.  This is dangerous
indeed, and leads to the polarization of people through the
abuse of social ideas (fairness, security, compassion), who 
are each trying to fulfill their ideas.  Such things lead to 
wars based on ideology, which can never be won, because
the ideology is made up and doesn't really exist.  There  is
no tangible winning, only a subjective sense of one.

Cheers,

Willblake2



On May 17, 2009, at 3:15:16 PM, "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[email protected]> wrote:
[WillBlake]
As I stated earlier, we are not our thoughts.

[Arlo]
Then what are we? What else besides "our thoughts"? 

[WillBlake]
I believe that Arlo is speaking about the Ego, which, as he states, comes from
the reflection of oneself in others, in the external.

[Arlo]
Ego? Not in the least. I am saying that "self" and "other" are concepts born of
social activity. The "I" is a symbolic locus of organization. To recognize
"self" and "other" as intentional agents requires social symbolic mediation.

That is Pirsig's hierarchy. As I said, you could argue against Pirsig, as you
seem to be doing, proposing an "inorganic-biological-intellectual" MOQ, with
"social" playing some sort of contextual role or outright interfering.



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/

Reply via email to