[Ron]
It was an observation and something I bumped into reading Ken Wilbur, I
thought it was interesting and thought kicking this around would be some
fun, did'nt mean to upset you Ham.
[Arlo]
This topic has been kicked around many times before, and every time
there are those who attempt to reduce it to an "either-or" argument,
where one must choose between "The Great Lone Individual" and "The
Inhuman Evil Collective".
Don't go down that route, Ron. It's a strawman and it goes nowhere.
[Ron]
I thought there was more to it than met the eye. I just innocently
wandered into that minefield.
Thanks for the heads up, that's the argument I raise with the excluded
middle logic, how does it
fit with pragmatic value assesment? This in it self seems to be contrary
logic, but hey..what do
I know.
[Arlo]
Ham's idea of "individual proprietary awareness" is what one would have
when left at birth on a deserted island. The "self", however, is not
"individual proprietary awareness". The "self" is what emerges when that
individual proprietary awareness entwines with what Pirsig calls "the
collective consciousness of all communicating mankind". That is, the
"self" and the "collective" are not separable pieces, they are
co-constructs. One could not exist without the other. The attempt to
imply there is a "war" between the two is utter nonsense.
[Ron]
This is why the article was interesting to me.
[Arlo]
What distresses me is that that ridiculous phrase "shoulders of giants"
keeps being trudged out of the dustbin of history where it belongs. If
one wishes to adopt a truly appropriate metaphor, I'd suggest Micah and
other Randians see themselves "69ing with giants". This captures the
Yin/Yang orientation of involvement, and one realizes that those giants
were also 69ing other giants, one ends up with a Dionysian Orgy of
intertwinement. This is a much better metaphor for historical
co-involvement and dialogicism than the woefully distorted "standing"
metaphor. Its also more extensible, sure, but I'll leave that to your
imagination.
[Ron]
"Dionysian Orgy of intertwinement" great name for a band
[Arlo]
Is there "proprietary awareness"? Sure. Our bodily-kinesthetic
experience ensures that. Is there a "collective consciousness"? Sure.
Pirsig calls it also the "mythos". And the "self", a referential point,
emerges as the two intertwine.
In the end, this "individual v. collective" tripe is simply
propagandistic bunk, if not shoddy and manipulative philosophy. There is
no tension, no war, no epic battle. The "self" is not a point of either
"individual proprietary awareness" nor "collective consciousness", it is
a fusion, a synthesis, a happy, dialogic co-construct of the two.
[Ron]
It did seem to me contradictive rational but hey, I'm not here to pick
fights, I'm here to gain a
broader understanding. I like to be open and understand all points of
view..but if I think you
have a hole in your trousers, I'm going to mention it in this spirit of
broader understanding.
Likewise I would appreciate the same, It would be nice to drop the
defensiveness and merely share
our thoughts and reasons for them and open ourselvs to the possiblitiy
of our perceptions being
changed. I have learned a great deal due to you folks here at this forum
and have come an awful long
way in my understanding with all of your help. Thank you.
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/
