[MD] MD 4th level - The more autonomus level

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo]
> Fair enough. While I attempt that, perhaps you can tell me how the thoughts
> in the head of a DIHI (deserted island human individual) would exist, on a
> greater level than your cat. Are you siding with Ham that the part of you
> that "thinks" (consciousness) is bestowed on us- as special creations- by
> Divine Source so that we may honor said Divine Source?

I think evolution that created humans and their capacity to think came 
from Quality, the source of all things. Call it Essence, God, Big Self, 
The Source -- whatever you like. I prefer Quality because it presumes  
that values--dynamic and static--were immanent from the start, as I'm 
convinced they were by the explanatory power of the MOQ. 

> Are you suggesting
> that "thinking" originates out of human DNA?

The ability to symbolize and create patterns of meaning through symbols is 
characteristic of the human brain, a highly developed bundle of nerve 
tissue. Only higher animals such as primates have a reduced capacity to do 
likewise. Of course, DNA plays a part in creating the brain. But, the more 
interesting questions are how and why did DNA (life) happen? 

> To begin with, let's take that DIHI (deserted island human individual), as
> the question could easily be, in a DIHI what type of "thought" does s/he
> have?

Please described Dihi in more detail. How old is she? How did she come to 
be alone on a desert island. Is she beautiful? (To me the last question is 
the most important although totally irrelevant in the present context.) 

> She would have, as Ham calls it, "organic sensibility" to be sure. She
> would be able to respond to low and high biological quality. She would be
> able to register pattern recognition to a certain degree, and act on
> external patterns in immediate moments of existence.
> 
> But would she have "thoughts" in her head? Would she be able to 
> symbolically represent her experience, and then reflect on these 
> representations? My answer is "no"

My answer is "yes" depending on her age. 

> The structure of symbolic 
> representations, containing saliences that direct attention to particular
> symbols and signs, is appropriated only via social, dialogic interactions.

I disagree. I think this ability comes naturally to human beings because 
it is this specific ability that enabled them to survive and form 
societies in the first place. In fact, it is this ability that separates 
man from the animals, you know, man the rational animal.

> But although this is social custom to think of "Arlo" and "Diana" as 
> separate social as well as biological patterns, the shared experiences of
> culture, appropriated as the individual gains the ability to manipulate
> symbols make their consciousnesses much more similar than dissimilar.

Consciousness is the same for Arlo, Ham, me, the beautiful Dihi, and the 
man over there behind the tree. But the contents differ. 

> Now, this means that human consciousness evolved over historical time. "We"
> are much more "conscious" (or have a greater conscious awareness) than our
> prehistoric ancestors. Do you concur?

No. There is more content in our consciousness, but no greater conscious 
awareness, i.e., pure experience prior to thought.

> And the reason for this greater
> consciousness is not genetic, but it due to an emergent social level that
> (1) latches and (2) symbolically represents experience so that one's
> thoughts are not simply "organic sensibilities".

We have higher conscious content (knowledge) due to the innovations and 
discoveries of individual creators who went before us. Most of us have  
just followed the advancing leaders, like sheep. There has yet to be 
another Mozart, Shakespeare, Velasquez or Frank Lloyd Wright, but millions 
of imitators. 
 
> Also, of course, I'm not saying that 21st century consciousness is 
> drastically greater than 18th century consciousness, the same way I say
> modern consciousness is greater than prehistoric consciousness. But since
> the social, collective consciousness grows, or as Pirsig says, the mythos
> grows, in historical time by the accumulation of analogue upon analogue,
> and since these analogues fill the... well, let me just end with Pirsig
> saying it himself....
> 
> "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. To feel that
> one is not so united, that one can accept or discard this mythos as one
> pleases, is not to understand what the mythos is."

What is now common knowledge or "mythos" developed from the striving of  
creative individuals -- one inspired idea at a time. In fact, to learn how 
 the mythos came to be, I highly recommend a book to you entitled "The 
Creators: A History of Heroes of the Imagination" by Daniel J. Boorstin.  

Looking forward to your one act play showing how the "first thought" 
arose. I hope a beautiful girl was involved. :-)

Platt