[MD] Emergent Consciousness

[Heather Perella]

Peter and Ham

     Peter said:  "In generaI I agree with what you
said except: 'nothingness in effect makes...'. Maybe
it's just very difficult to be precise when dealing
with the concerns of this discussion board but as I
see it the nothingness, 'I', does not do or make
anything - it is just a proposed symbol for that
autonomous individual composed of 4 strata of
spandrels proposing the 'I'; so for me it is the
individual that "in effect makes 'being-aware' in
consciousness". I suppose that implies that the 'I',
awareness or consciousness is DQ (as someone else on
these fora has said)."

     Here is a definition of spandrel:  ""In the
context of evolution, a spandrel is a metaphor for
characteristics that are or were orginally side
effects and not true adaptions to the environment.
This metaphorical meaning works no matter which kind
of architectural spandrel is referred to: the spandrel
is the un-designed gap between other features, which
is then often exploited for a use of its own."
( http://spandrel.com/about.html )
 

     Peter, are you saying that 'I', or that
consciousness aware of being here (self-awareness) is
a spandrel?  A spandrel that comes about due to the 4
"strata of spandrels" or 4 levels that where
incidental spaces of features shooting-off or
sprouting from other and therefore must have been
previous adaptive features.  Thus, these levels were
at one time spandrels, spaces between or amongst
traits that where adaptive and these side-features did
nothing.  Then these spandrels or side-features that
did nothing became useful or exploited by their
neutral presence that began to have a useful
applicability.  The 'I' or self-awareness is a
side-effect of these 4 levels or fits somewhere in
these 4 levels.  Since the individual has all 4
levels, as the smaller boxes (each of the 4 levels)
within the large box (the individual) metaphor
somebody mentioned, then the individual would be
static pattern as a whole, yet, something undefined is
still with us, as individuals, a spandrel.  Yet, from
what you are saying Peter, or from reading your post I
am now perceiving, is this spandrel is becoming an
identifiable trait.  Now that this spandrel is
identifiable, according to how Gould uses spandrel,
this spandrel is within the scope of evolution, within
reach of positive and negative selection (Gould uses
positive and negative selective terms).  
     Therefore this spandrel, 'I', glimmering in reach
of identity, no longer neutral, but actively
participating as something specific that is noticed,
thus, by being noticed, that alone, puts 'I' into the
pressures of evolution.  This 'I', this
self-awareness, sprouting from all the features that
have us be human is no longer just a spandrel sitting
off to the side in a state of neutrality, but has now
grown and become a trait specifically identifiable
unto itself.  This 'I' is bombarded by evolutionary
pressures, and intellect, society, biology, inorganic,
and even chaos, all together put selective pressures
on the 'I'.  These selective pressures would appear to
the 'I' in differing definable relations, but one of
these that I see is the questioning the world has on
the 'I', which is what is a positive 'I' and what is a
negative 'I'.  Put another way or in other words, what
we are self-aware of - the question itself placed on
self-awareness, thus, what are we self-aware of, and
that self-awareness is being questioned by the world. 

     We question what self is aware of.  Put into
static patterns this self becomes aware of the 4
levels (plus chaos, and dynamic quality, too), yet, as
I stated in the beginning of this post, this self,
being-aware, of no matter what the self is aware of,
that is something Pirsig is putting into static
patterns to latch into place a foot-hold of what self
is aware of to lock into place identities that are
here, in which we are aware of.  Since the self
being-aware of this world (including itself, which is
undeniably part of this world) is no longer barely
visible, as in chimpanzees, which some argument to
their self-awareness exists, humankind has reached or
participates in an experience on this earth that has a
more solid realization of self.  Yet, since we
question self, still, then self has this spandrel
aspect of itself, a space unidentified, but since
questioned it would be apparent that self is on the
verge of expanding into a larger definition of itself.
 Self is 4 levels, these static patterns identified,
and self is this something else we question, we
notice, yet, still question as to what it is?  This
question aspect of self we still wonder about is what
Pirsig calls dynamic quality.  
     Peter, does this make sense?

Thanks,
SA    

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com