[Platt] As Horse says, there is common knowledge which we, as individuals, acquire as we individually mature.
[Arlo] I think Horse and I are fairly close in agreement, based on his latest post. But thanks again for reifying your S/O stance. [Platt] We, like Lila, individually consist of the four static levels of morality plus the ability to respond to DQ. Your "body plus collective" bit is the world according to Arlo. [Arlo] Not at all. Indeed, as I have said, as embodied beings we have a certain unique experience that arises out of our biological embeddedness. We are also social beings, engaging with others dialogically, and in doing so transform and are transformed. A result of this collective activity (which is different from "collective consciousness") is the emergence of socially-constructed intellectual patterns. We then, in turn, assimilate these (along with our ongoing appropriate of the collective consciousness). Of course, we are also inorganic beings, but I think that the effect of our inorganic experience on our selves is universal and rather fixed, so I don't mention it. Having said this, you see, I certainly DO consider the "self" to be an emergent referential point based on inorganic, biological, social and intellectual experience; with the ability to respond "intellectual-dynamically" based on the fusion of our (I'll add this for sheer clarity) inorganic-bodily-kinesthetic proprietary experiences and the appropriate of the collective consciousness. Pure MOQ. Not your S/O external "individual" interacting with patterns that are forever apart from it. As Pirsig says, that's a "ridiculous little fiction". 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/
