Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [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.
Lila exists as a unique pattern. There's only one Lila, and only one Arlo. > [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. No, this is static biological pattern, predictable, repeatable. Nothing good or wondrous about it. > [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. My cat has a self, a very individual, unique self. You don't have to be human to be a self. A dog's response to a fire is not DQ; it's a static biological pattern. > [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. All well and good, but hard-to-comprehend language is hardly the vehicle to move us there. You will note Pirsig's moves us toward something better using plain, simple, S/O based language. No reason why we all can't follow his example. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
