[Horse] I think in general we agree on most things - but maybe the way that we express our ideas causes some disagreement.
[Arlo] This is the way I see it too. [Arlo previously] 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". [Horse] 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. [Arlo] Saying the "self" is "patterns of value responding to DQ" is fine by me. What I am trying to do is tease out how those patterns co-evolve, and how collectivity on one level gives rise to the ability to respond to DQ on the next. For example, biological patterns are incapable of directly "creating" intellectual patterns. There needs to be a social level first, and it is through these social patterns (dialogic interactivity) that intellectual patterns can emerge. And I am doing so trying to avoid the typical S/O dichotomy Platt (and others) continuously bring to the discussion. The "self" is not apart from social-intellectual patterns, it is created (or emerges) out of these patterns and (as an embodied biological being) its unique "proprietary" bodily-kinesthetic experience. (As I said to Platt, of course, we are also "inorganic beings" and have a certain inorganic experience as well. But I contend our inorganic experience (response to gravity, e.g.) is fairly universal and so I don't bother to mention it always). [Horse] Personally, I don't share Platt's view of the individual and neither does the MoQ. [Arlo] Agreed. [Arlo previously] 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". [Horse] 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? [Arlo] Ah, you see, gonna nitpick. When you say "it's repertoire of patterns of value"... I have to back away. The self does not "have" a repertoire of patterns of value, it IS a repertoire of patterns of value. The former implies again a removed self interacting with external patterns, S/O in my book. The latter does not separate the self from the patterns, but merely says the self is a reference point that emerges out of self-referentiality (to bring in Hofstadter). [Arlo previously] 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. [Horse] More shorthand - similar to the above. No homonculii around here! [Arlo] Good to hear it. We have enough homonculii worshippers around. :-) [Arlo previously] 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. [Horse] 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. [Arlo] I think both "individual" and "collective" (in terms of patterns) is nothing more than a matter of focus. A human body is on one view an "individual biological pattern", on another its a complex collective of biological patterns, on still another is a very large collective of inorganic patterns... a collective complex enough (on the inorganic level) to allow for higher levels of complexity (qualitative evolution, if you will). [Horse] 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. [Arlo] Agree. Thanks for emphasizing this. [Arlo previously] What would an example of a intellectual pattern of value that is not shareable? [Horse] I had in mind something like dreams. Or the moment of epiphany. Could be wrong though. [Arlo] We can share dreams, can't we? And I'd venture that a moment of epiphany is "pre-intellectual". The whole purpose of making it intellectual is to share it. ... Here I slipped into S/O language. ;-) [Horse] 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. [Arlo] Yes, the terminology is always problematic. Years and years of S/O discourse and here we are. But I'd put the collective consciousness as a term for social and intellectual patterns available to the biological agent. Math (our cultural version of it), an intellectual pattern of value, is as dialogically intwined with the "self" as social patterns such as particular linguistic metaphors. [Horse] I also don't think that the idea of self-consciousness need to be purely a 'human' characteristic. [Arlo] Agreed. [Horse] Intellectual knowledge is not shared via intellectual patterns of value or the intellectual process but passed down and along via the social level. [Arlo] Which is precisely why intellectual patterns are part of the collective consciousness. [Horse] 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. [Arlo] I'm not too familiar with memes. But from what I can tell, we are on the same page. [Horse] 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] Fun with some. (Present company included). 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/
