[MD] Emergent Consciousness

[Ham Priday]

Arlo, Ian, Case, Peter [Platt mentioned] --

It continues to amaze me how the simplest, most self-evident concepts
provoke rage in this forum.

Platt has been making an eloquent appeal for recognition of the individual
intellect, keeping within the approved heirarchical structure.  He might as
well be arguing for a return to Copernican cosmology, judging by the
reaction.  Why is his suggestion unreasonable?  Why is an analysis of of the
individual perspective "out of bounds" in the Metaphysics of Quality?  Does
it impugn Pirsig's thesis?  Does it lessen our understanding of Quality?

Considering the frequent mention of Rand, neocons, and George Bush in these
responses, I'm inclined to believe that the idea of individualism is
offensive to the liberal mindset of this group.  If that's true, it would
indicate an effort to make philosophy conform to a certain political
pursuasion.
I sincerely hope this isn't the case, as it would not only discourage
newcomers to the MoQ but damage the reputation of its author.

Several comments have been posted in reply to my note to Peter Corteen which
included this criticism of Arlo's position on Conscious Awareness:

> Arlo persists in misconstruing awareness as behavior.
> Whether this is purposeful or in deference to the MoQ heirarchy,
> I'm not sure, but it is annoying.  Frankly, I don't see how it's
> possible -- let alone reasonable -- for an individual to ignore the
> fact that everything he knows, thinks, or feels is awareness.
> And with Experience being the primary MoQ interaction of the
> individual with reality, I should think awareness would be the
> dominant issue of these discussions.

Arlo responded:

> Annoying? Why? Because I don't need a masturbatory little
> "I" fantasy to escape from the scary, evil boogeyman of moral
> relativism? Whether this is out of some psychological shortcoming
> of Ham's or in typical neocon "people need myths" ideology,
> I'm not sure, but it is "annoying" when you try to convince others
> they NEED your little fantasy "I" as well. What?  Misery loves
> company?  It's lonely in that "prison" and you want a few
> more inmates?

Inasmuch as I happen to be a moral relativist, this mimicking retort is not
only uncalled for but misdirected.  But it makes little sense anyway.  Arlo
considers conscious awareness a "fantasy" that was created by neocons who
"need myths".  Aside from the irrelevant fact that I've always been a
conservative, hence am not a "neocon", I wonder if Arlo can name a
philosopher prior to the 20th century who asserted that individual awareness
is a myth.   I also wonder why he thinks I'm "miserable" in the prison of my
awareness.  People who aren't imprisoned by their awareness must be out of
their minds!

Ian was quick to compliment Arlo:

> I like the post Arlo - it would be great if Ham and other
> Randians at least got the point, whether they agree or not.
>
> Objectivity has the illusion of a solid foundation that is just
> so attractive to the "conservative" mind. A big reason why
> everyone should be forced occasionally to dive outside their
> comfort zone, and see if they can actually float.

Again, the association of objectivity with the "conservative" mind.  Are
"floating" liberals incapable of thinking objectivity?  Maybe they've taken
too many dives outside their "comfort zone".  And what is the "point" I
don't get?  That there is no individual consciousness?

Oh, and I must make a note in my comfort zone that "honor" has gone the way
of individualism in our postmodern world.  Arlo says he's "still waiting for
one example of someone acting 'honorably' that does not imply duty to others
over self."  (I wonder what cloud he's floating on.)

Good luck to you all,
Ham