[Arlo previously] No, he states clearly the collective consciousness unites our minds like cells in a body. The "individual" is a pragmatic reference point, but does not exist apart from the patterns of which it emerges. Since it emerges from the collective consciousness (in part) it is not apart from them.
[Platt] Speaking of the individual Lila Pirsig wrote: "Biologically she's fine, socially she's pretty far down the scale, intellectually she's nowhere. But Dynamically . . . Ah! That's the one to watch." (Lila, 13) Now, what did you say? [Arlo] Just what I wrote. Lila does not exist apart from the patterns from which her "self" emerges; and this includes the collective consciousness that unites all our minds. [Platt] Give me an example of a dog responding to DQ. Howling at the moon perhaps? [Arlo] Start a fire, the dog will run from the flames. This is responding to DQ on the biological level. The dog is, of course, incapable of responding to the DQ on the social or intellectual levels. [Platt] OK. I get it. Without other people, the individual wouldn't last long. Duh. [Arlo] Without other people, the "individual" would not exist socially or intellectually. There would only be an "individual" biological agent; no "self", no intellect. Our response to DQ would be like that of the dog, restricted to the biological (okay, and inorganic) levels. [Arlo previously] I'm skipping your "translations", as all they are attempts to restate what I said in the language of S/O dualism. I have no interest in that. [Platt] I guess not since all our language and common understanding is built around S/O dualism. [Arlo] Which is why, like Pirsig, I am trying to move towards something better. 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/
