[MD] Emergent Consciousness

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

Great post! It amazes me that liberals here can easily change Pirsig's 
social level to include atoms, ants and antelopes even though Pirsig 
explicitly and repeatedly stated that his social level is for humans 
only. But, when I suggest that his intellectual level might better be 
designated as the individual level to include principled individuals 
and to emphasize the ongoing battle for dominance between the free-
thinking individual and the conformist collective, you would think I 
had personally nailed Jesus to the cross. 

You ended your post by saying "Good luck to all" indicating to me that 
you might be signing off permanently. I earnestly hope that is not the 
case because you are a clear voice of sanity in an otherwise cacophony 
of Marxist, socialist, left-wing, collectivist blather. 

Best regards,
Platt

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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/