[Arlo previously]
Yes, especially the part about how it "unites our minds as the cells of a body
are united". It also reminds us on how the "logos" derives from a cultural
context, and that this dialogism is inescapable.
[Platt]
"Dialogism?" What big words you use, Grandma.
[Arlo]
Sorry if big words give you trouble, Platt. (Gonna do some thread consolidation
here).
[Platt]
Anyway, what ever became of "collective consciousness?" Seems you are now
agreeing to Horse's suggestion to substitute the plainer "common knowledge."
[Arlo]
Read my response to Horse.
[Platt]
Ah, a point of agreement. I wrote in another post: "We, like Lila, individually
consist of the four static levels of morality plus the ability to respond to
DQ."
[Arlo]
Adding the word "individually" belies your adherence to S/O dualism. Better
just to say "We consist of the four static levels of morality plus the ability
to respond to DQ". Recall that the collective consciousness "unites our minds
as cells are united in the body of man".
[Platt]
That the levels influence and affect one another is not an issue.
[Arlo]
It most certainly is. The ability to respond to DQ (on the social and
intellectual levels), for example, derives from the the interplay between
bodily-kinesthetic "proprietary" experience AND the appropriation of the
collective consciousness. ("So and so culture exists, therefore I think,
therefore I am").
[Platt]
Any chance you can restate this in plain English?
[Arlo]
As embodied beings (biological agents), we have an inescapable
bodily-kinesthetic experience that is unique (I include inorganic in this, as I
said, but don't stress it because I find it more or less universal). The
collective consciousness emerges as social interactivity between biological
agents begins (something that requires the evolution of quite complex
biological patterns). As complexity on the social level is achieved, a "self"
emerges as a referential point in organization of these two (bodily-kinesthetic
and social). This "self" is not external to either, but a construct of both. As
social patterns increase in complexity, and intellectual patterns begin to
emerge from collective social activity, these patterns too become part of the
collective consciousness and are in turn transformed and transform the self as
it "becomes".
The ability to respond to DQ, on subsequent levels of static quality, derives
from our appropriation of these patterns. We can respond to biological quality
because we ARE collective biological patterns. We can respond to social quality
because we ARE collective social patterns. We can respond to intellectual
quality because we ARE collective intellectual patterns. (Notice that this
simply restates "We consist of the four levels of static morality"). Our
ability to respond to DQ derives from the appropriation of these patterns AND,
or IN DANCE WITH our unique bodily-kinesthetic (including inorganic) experience.
Finally, note that the collective consciousness, according to Pirsig, does
indeed include the intellectual level. In the segment you cite in an attempt to
show otherwise, you omit this precedent.
"The mythos-over-logos argument points to the fact that each child is born as
ignorant as any caveman. What keeps the world from reverting to the Neanderthal
with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos, transformed into logos
BUT STILL MYTHOS, the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as
cells are united in the body of man."
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/
