Hi Arlo I think in general we agree on most things - but maybe the way that we express our ideas causes some disagreement.
ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote: > [Horse] > OK - I was being sarcastic and apologise if you or anyone else took offense. > > [Arlo] > No worries, Horse. I am just weary from the inevitable distorations of what I > write. No matter how many times I get involved in this discussion, the end is > always the same "Arlo denies the self, loves Pol Pot, and wants to toss people > into gulags". Yeah, I know what you mean. > > [Horse] > But my point was a bit more serious. We've been down the individual vs. > collective road many times and so far it's gotten pretty much nowhere so I'm > trying to introduce a different point of view with the hope of avoiding the > usual arguments and maybe getting some agreement. Although I'm not holding my > breath until it happens. > > [Arlo] > Here, too, you seem to imply that I support a "side" in this "epic battle". I, > too, think the whole "individual v. collective" is nonsense. Like choosing > between night and day. Instead, I argue that these are simply co-constructs of > a dance between a biological agent's bodily-kinesthetic experience and the > Mythos, or collective consciousness. My bad. I think you've explained yourself very clearly and on many occasions. No implication was implied! > > [Horse] > I agree, but still we need to find some sort of common ground. > > [Arlo] > I think I am on common ground. We DO have proprietary experience. There IS a > collective consciousness. And the "Self" arises from the interplay of the two. > > [Horse] > OK - so to re-cap we have a particular type of awareness/consciousness and a > shared body of ideas. Agreed? > > [Arlo] > Not so simply. What we have is a particular type of bodily-kinesthetic > experience. This is the "awareness" we would possess growing up on a deserted > island. But this is not the "Self", which is often what we mean when we talk > about "awareness/consciousness". In short, there is a triad, not a duality. > There is not man-over-here and knowledge-over-there. We are not apart from our > "shared body of ideas", we ARE our "shared body of ideas". I would probably express this as we are patterns of value responding to DQ cos that makes more sense to me. I think that knowledge and information, awareness, consciousness etc. are part and parcel of those patterns of value and not separate from them so we are probably agreeing here more than disagreeing. Just using different terminology. > > [Horse] > Here's where the idea of collective knowledge comes in useful. The way that > I'm > suggesting knowledge is gained and transmitted has both a static and dynamic > element within the different levels. An individual, as Platt refers to it, > shares knowledge at, certainly, 3 and possibly 4 levels. However, at each > level > it is expressed qualitatively differently. Biological knowledge, social > knowledge and intellectual knowledge are, obviously, related to the levels > within which they live. But they are only part of their overall respective > levels. > > [Arlo] > The "individual", as Platt refers to it, does not "share" knowledge, it IS > knowledge. Otherwise you are left with what Pirsig refers to as a "little > homunculus" that sits behind our eyes and interacts with external knowledge. Personally, I don't share Platt's view of the individual and neither does the MoQ. > > [Horse] > Lets be real here. If you stick a baby alone on an island it's dead in a week > so obviously would have no self. > > [Arlo] > Well, sure. Its a hypothetical to make a point. > > [Horse] > A baby can gain biological knowledge and does when it's vaccinated or catches > a > cold or similar. > > [Arlo] > To disambiguate, this is solely what a baby on a deserted island would have. > But as soon as you place that baby in a social environment, with the coos and > sounds and faces and voices of others, that baby is also experiencing social > patterns. Agreed. > > [Horse] > When it grows up and interacts with others it gains social knowledge such as > how to behave in certain situations. > > [Arlo] > It doesn't "gain" social knowledge, the "self" emerges when the babies > "biological experience" intertwines with the social patterns it experiences. > Thus it "becomes", it does not "gain". OK - more shorthand. It's repertoire of patterns of value expand to include different patterns of value - new patterns of value are formed in the process of becoming. Any better? > > [Horse] > At a later stage it gains intellectual knowledge by discussion and other > means. > > [Arlo] > Again, I'll have to disagree. It does not "gain" knowledge, it constructs > knowledge dialogically, and in doing so "becomes" something new. I keep > emphasizing this because I think its falling prey to another empty dichotomy > to > posit some external homunculus sitting back apart from what is interacts with. > Indeed, this is simply another face of the S/O divide. More shorthand - similar to the above. No homonculii around here! > > [Horse] > All of these precesses have both static and dynamic elements. The problem here > is that we're trying to relate all these different types of knowledge to > humans > which is a complete non-starter. Biological knowledge, social knowledge and > intellectual knowledge have far wider implications than just their > relationship > to humans. > > [Arlo] > Agreed. But, the ability of the "self" to respond Dynamically (on the > intellectual level, for example) arises from the interjoining of static > bodily-kinesthetic experience as it assimilates static social and intellectual > patterns. Thus the "self" is BOTH Dynamic AND static, emboding the yin-yang > loop of this tension. It is NOT an external Dynamic agent that interacts with > static knowledge apart from itself. Again that is just S/O illusion. Fair enough. I don't see anything to specifically disagree with here. Not entirely sure I'd put it this way though. > > [Horse] > This is where the politically slanted arguments generally start. Can we say > for > the moment that intellectual knowledge is a subset of intellectual patterns of > value (IntPovs), just as social and biological knowledge are subsets of social > and intellectual patterns of value. > > [Arlo] > I don't see anything to disagree with here. > > [Horse] > They all arise in different ways according to the level they exist within. > > [Arlo] > Agree. But the process by which they arise is similar. That is, collective > activity on a lower-level creates "individual" patterns on a higher level. > These "individual" patterns then, in turn, collectivize which gives rise to > yet > other "individual" patterns on higher levels. Seen this way, whether something > is an "individual" pattern or a "collective" pattern is simply a matter of > focus. Careful - your use of the term individual is highly provocative. The overall process is similar in overview terms but the qualitative difference is still present. There is a pattern of, effectively, simple to complex to simple, but the higher order simple is of greater complexity than the lower order simple due to those qualitative differences. > > [Horse] > Not all IntPovs are shared or shareable... > > [Arlo] > What would an example of a intellectual pattern of value that is not > shareable? I had in mind something like dreams. Or the moment of epiphany. Could be wrong though. > > [Horse] > ... but intellectual knowledge is shareable - same with social/biological > patterns and knowledge - and thus can be considered collective. > > [Arlo] > Yes, here is where I think our major disagreement is evident. In your words I > still see some removed-observer sharing knowledge that is apart from her/him. > They collective consciousness is not apart from us, it is a part of us. > Collective "knowledge" is not apart from us, it IS us. I'm hoping that this is more terminology. My interpretation is that the collective consciousness is at the social level. I say this because I don't see any reason to assume that consciousness is a property of intellect - or however you wish to phrase it. I also don't think that the idea of self-consciousness need to be purely a 'human' characteristic. Intellectual knowledge is not shared via intellectual patterns of value or the intellectual process but passed down and along via the social level. I'm not using these terms in the sense that this knowledge is something external to us in the sense discussed above. Memes come to mind here. > > [Horse] > I just don't think that the term collective consciousness is particularly > useful... > > [Arlo] > I think this is because you externalize it, while I see it as fundamentally > US. > Our "selves" are every bit as much the knowledge it assimilates as it is the > bodily-experiences unique to us as embodied beings. See above. I'm not externalizing just applying the process in terms of the MoQ and patterns of value. > > [Horse] > Consciousness and knowledge have a relationship within the intellectual level > but are not the same thing. > > [Arlo] > Yes, they are, considering that "consciousness" also includes the unique > experiences of our bodily-kinesthetic being. > > [Horse] > So let's get rid of the causes of the ridiculous mass debate and look at the > whole thing from a different perspective. An MoQ perspective would be quite > nice. > > [Arlo] > I think this is what I do. I think we're both trying to do this, along with others on this list, but still having a hard time with the terminology. Still, it's certainly fun going about it. > > [Arlo previously] > Bottom line, its a dance, not a war. > > [Horse] > Care to have the last one with me! :) > > [Arlo] > Anytime. > My card is marked Cheers Arlo Horse 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/
