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

[Platt Holden]

Arlo writes:

> Platt,
> 
> You make an interesting claim in your last post (in this thread). Namely
> that "consciousness" is categorically distinct from "it's contents". Into
> the category "contents" you place what I referred to as "the shared
> experiences of culture, appropriated as the individual gains the ability to
> manipulate symbols", and I would imagine (you can clarify) that you also
> place the symbolically represented experiences of the specific individual.
> 
> In doing so, you seem to place "consciousness" as an attribute of biology
> (if not specifically genetic). 

I apologize for not making myself clear. To me "consciousness" is the same 
as "experience," and "Quality." It is at once transcendent and immanent in 
all things, great and small. Everything has consciousness to one degree or 
another. Or as Pirsig might say, consciousness has everything.   

>You say, "consciousness is the same for
> Arlo, Ham, me, the beautiful Dihi, and the man over there behind the tree".
> You do seem to state outright that "consciousness" is a function of
> genetics saying it is the "ability to symbolize and create patterns of
> meaning through symbols is characteristic of the human brain, a highly
> developed bundle of nerve tissue."
> 
> To sum, "consciousness" is something we are born with, is a function of the
> genetic neurobiological makeup of the human brain, and matures in parallel
> to the physical maturation of the brain.

Rather than say consciousness is something we are born with, I would say 
"born into." The human brain, a bundle of nerve tissue, "opens a window" 
on consciousness, resulting in what we call "experience." 

> Neanderthal man, Arlo, and the DIHI would all have the same (meaning 
> equivalent) consciousness by virtue of our human DNA. Is this correct so
> far?

We all have the same "window on" consciousness, i.e., we all experience. 

> The "contents" of our consciousness, which differ then from said 
> Neanderthal, Arlo and that beautiful DIHI, differ so because of the 
> cultural system and social latches they are surrounded with, including
> language, tools, books, and the way they apply these tools to their own
> unique proprietary experience. Would that be an adequate statement?

Yes, their "unique proprietary experience" means the "unique content of 
their experience" which makes them each "individuals."

> A couple of questions, to begin, in the evolutionary MOQ, the 
> "intellectual" level Pirsig describes as mediated by the social. In direct
> terms, Pirsig says the social evolves out of the biological, and the
> intellectual evolves out the social. In your call to rename the
> "intellectual" level the "individual", would it not make more sense given
> the above (consciousness emerges directly from biology, and is then filled
> with "contents" somehow derived from social patterns), to place the
> "intellectual level" above the biological level, and then the social level
> on top? If not, why?

Because Pirsig is speaking in generalities, not about the particular proprietary
experience of individuals. The contents of an individual's consciousness 
is derived mostly from memories of unique personal experiences, not from 
generalized social patterns such as language. Human beings have many 
experiences in common. But, as Pirsig pointed out, each has different 
values due to different life experiences. As usual, you want to lump 
everybody into one big undifferentiated group. You tend to think of people 
like a herd of cattle. I tend to think of them as individuals, like 
Ferdinand, the bull.  

>Your position states clearly that "consciousness"
> comes directly from biology (neurobiological structures), and it is only
> afterwards that this consciousness is "filled with contents" based on the
> specific social-cultural mediated experiences of the individual.

So long as you focus on the word "specific" in the sentence above, you are 
partly right. As said, much of an individual's conscious content is 
personal memories, usually held as direct images that aren't "mediated" by 
anyone or anything else.

> Indeed, in
> your post you say (about consciousness), "[I] think this ability [symbolic
> represenation] comes naturally to human beings because it is this specific
> ability that enabled them to survive and form societies in the first
> place." Human consciousness, that which is independent of social-cultural
> happenstance, is biological and predates the emergence of social level
> patterns. Therefore the "individual" level would be more apt to be between
> the biological and the social. Yes? No?

The ability to make and manipulate symbols is biological in the sense that 
it is unique to the bundle of nerve tissue we call the human brain. But 
the specific symbols and patterns of meaning that comprise the contents of 
consciousness are unique for each individual. That we are having a 
discussion about the meaning of consciousness demonstrates the 
individuality of Arlo and Platt. Likewise, Ham has a different idea of 
"morality" than Pirsig. It is on the level of ideas that people earn their 
individuality, whereas at the social level people are mostly known by the 
group they belong to and at the biological level by the fact that they 
appear to be of the human species. The higher the level, the greater the 
the magnitude of the meaning of "individual" until we rise to the highest, 
most singular, special, irreplaceable "Arlo."   
 
> Or, would it not be more appropriate to rename the "biological level"
> itself the "individual level", since it is at the level of biology that
> "consciousness" exists? If it is NOT at the biological level that
> consciousness exists, how could the Neanderthal, Arlo and the stunningly
> attractive DIHI all have the same (equivalent) consciousness?

Experience exists at all levels. Consciousness exists at all levels. My 
cat experiences. He is conscious, but I dare say the content of his 
conscious is somewhat less than mine. But regardless, he doesn't belong at 
the intellectual level because he's unable to form ideas, i.e., symbols 
that stand for patterns of meaning.      

> Finally, in response to Pirsig's assertion that ""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", you reply, "What is now common knowledge or
> "mythos" developed from the striving of creative individuals -- one
> inspired idea at a time."
> 
> You continue to miss, perhaps deliberately, the point made by Pirsig.
> Namely that your so-called "striving individuals" do not strive in
> isolation from the collective consciousness, the huge body of common
> knowledge that unites our minds. Indeed, that "striving" is (1) made
> possible by the collective consciousness (without the collective
> consciousness, the huge body of common knowledge uniting our minds, Pirsig
> would not have had the ability to formulate the MOQ. He was able to
> formulate the MOQ by virtue of his appropriation of the collective
> consciousness at a point in the historical dialogue where it became
> possible to say what he says. A Neanderthal, for example, would be
> completely unable to formulate the MOQ, because the MOQ is an outgrowth of
> a historical-social evolution). If Edison, for another example, were born
> 200 years earlier, we would not have had the telephone earlier. If Edison
> were killed as a child, we would not still be relying on horse delivered
> correspondences. At any given point in the historical-social dialogue of
> the collective consciousness, there is potentiality. That potentiality is
> fulfilled by individuals, to be sure, but individuals are not "free" to act
> irrespective of this potential.
 
My point all along has been that the mythos exists only because at each 
and every step of development, someone was first, followed by another and 
another.

I look forward to your exciting scenario as to how the first thought 
arose. Hopefully it will star the gorgeous DIHI.

Platt