[Mark] OK, was simply bringing in a bit of Pirsig. I suppose some find him desperate (at least I so sometimes) it must be hard to try to explain all these things that are ineffible.
[Arlo] Pirsig is not desperate, the people who evoke "you're static" as a way of trying to give their nonsensical ramblings validity are. Its a common theme here, say dumb things and then respond with "you're static" when people point out how dumb they are. [Mark] All I can say is you are presenting phenomena from the Social level, that is the integrated "group think" that seem to dominate many. [Arlo] Again, you don't read what I write. "Group think" is a strawman. Language is social. Humans are comprised of I/B/S/I patterns of value. [Mark] I am just using a knife to separate the levels. [Arlo] You are trapped on the biological level. [Mark] No seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about. [Arlo] You have no idea that static quality is seen as inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns of value? You can't figure out what a "cheeseburger" is? [Mark] The way you present freedom is through a static representation of such. [Arlo] Static patterns are, to continue the metaphor, structures. Agency is the range of possibility patterns have to respond to DQ. "Freedom" is a empty concept, and your "freedom/bondage" is SOM through and through. [Mark] How is it that you claim that a road can bring both freedom and lack of freedom? [Arlo] Because it gives me the freedom to go many, many places, I just have to follow the road (and obey the laws) to get to them. [Mark] Freedom comes first, then the road. It cannot be the other way around. [Arlo] It is not "the other way around", the freedom and the constraints co-evolve as patterns respond to DQ. Agency informs structure, which instantly impacts agency. [Mark] since I often seem to not make much sense in a Western way [Arlo[ Is this what you tell yourself? Mark, you don't make sense in any way. [Mark] Now how about our individual consciousness that is free from the Social Level? [Arlo] "Individual consciousness"? You mean subjectivism? Its apparent from statements like this that you are still stuck in trying to reconcile S/O thinking, and I don't know what I can offer to help you with that. "This Cartesian "Me," this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This Cartesian "Me" is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This body on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same program, the same "Me," which doesn't belong to either of them. The "Me's" are simply a program format." (LILA) "Any language is more than an instrument of conveying ideas, more even than an instrument for working upon the feelings of others and for self-expression. Every language is also a means of categorizing experience. The events of the "rear world are never felt or reported as a machine would do it. There is a selection process and an interpretation in the very act of response. Some features of the external situation are highlighted, others are ignored or not fully discriminated. Every people has its own characteristic class in which individuals pigeonhole their experiences. The language says, as it were, "notice this," "always consider this separate from that," "such and such things always belong together. " Since persons are trained from infancy to respond in these ways they take such discriminations for granted as part of the inescapable stuff of life." (Pirsig quoting Kluckholn in LILA) "As the atomic physicist, Niels Bohr, said, "We are suspended in language." Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived." (LILA) I don't expect you to understand the ramifications of this, Mark, its pretty clear you embrace subjectivism, but why you try to pass that off as a MOQ is beyond me. [Mark] I do this all the time, I do not live in the "road level". [Arlo] You say you "dismissed the road with the blink of an eye" all the time? I bet you stayed on the road, though, didn't you? Denying its there is not "dismissing it", dismissing the roads would be to drive irrespective of or without following the roads. You know you don't do this. But I encourage you to try. Today on you way home say "I am not going to follow roads, I will use my freedom to get from here to there in any direction I freely choose". Do this, and let me know if your agency is not diminished. [Mark] Well, if you are somehow divine, then I apologize. [Arlo] I am not "divine" (you mean "beyond experience"?), I said some of us our more than the biological level. If the social and intellectual levels are "divine" to you, that would explain a lot. [Mark] Yes, we are speaking of two different types of freedom. You are speaking of Social Freedom which is imparted through society. [Arlo] No, I am speaking of human agency, which is increased by structure as it is simultenously constrained. These structures are inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. As per the social level specifically, yes, the social level affords human agency far greater freedoms than man as a biological pattern only enjoyed. The intellectual level brought even greater possibility to human agency than the social delivered. Each level has increased the range of agency of the patterns involved, while at the same time constraining the range of their possible activity in unavoidable ways. 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/md/archives.html
