[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Laramie [Micah?] --


> Intellect, Mind or Consciousness as Field or Ground is
> evolutionary in the sense that it's something the individual
> awakens to.  It's ever present, though usually tacit.  We as
> individuals develop our sense of it.  Definitely not an
> external entity - who has suggested that?  Consciousness
> is the interior space or field in which external entities
> are manifest.

I'm disheartened, as your philosophical mentor Rand would be, to see that
you've bought into the Pirsigian idea of a "field" (i.e., collective level)
of Consciousness that one "awakens to".  What is "tacit" about consciousness
is that it's our awareness -- what we are, inherently, at ANY moment of
wakefulness.  Mind or Consciousness is not a space or field, in the interior
or the exterior; it is our subjective identity as a human being.

"From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the
wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from
a single attribute of man -- the function of his reasoning mind.

"But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a
collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought..."
                        [Rand: "The Fountainhead"]

[Ham, previously]:
> "Yes, we evolve to a "level" of intellect, just as we evolve
> to a "level" of competence, "level" in this context having
> nothing especially to do with Pirsig's Quality breakout, however.
> But I suspect Ayn Rand would reach out of her grave for
> another cigarette if she knew how anxious Pirsigians are to
> disparage individual intellect."

[Laramie]:
> Excuse me for not being clear, but the intellect I'm referring
> to does have some correspondence to Pirsig's Quality breakout.
> And it's universal, not individual.  Individual only in the sense that
> it's the individual who may realize it and from there develop it.
>  What?  Consciousness, Mind or Intellect evolves through
> conscious human intention - it's up to YOU - your very own
> evolution and development at the deepest level.

If the intellect you're referring to is 'Universal", then you are referring
to the body of knowledge that can be described as the collective
understanding of our culture.  But the content of this understanding is
supplied by individuals working with their individual intellects.  There
lies the ambiguity of "knowledge" and "intellect".  When used in a
collective sense, these terms become objective.  But knowledge in the sense
of "knowing" can only by the subject's awareness (cognizance) of something.
Knowing is not a collective phenomenon: it is the awareness that "I" know.

I'm not clear as to Rand's position on proprietary awareness, per se,
because all I've seen thus far are interpretations by Branden, Peikoff, et
al.  If you can find a quotation that proves she is on the "collective" side
of this issue, I'll be very surprised.  However, for the moment, I think you
may be confusing the universal description of Intellect ("common knowledge")
with individual awareness.  Indeed, your statement that Quality is
"...individual only in the sense that it's the individual who may realize
it" belies the claim that conscious awareness can be anything other that
proprietary to the individual.  The realization IS the awareness.  Anything
else is objective data as found in books, histories, scientific reports, or
collectively held principles.

Thanks for replying with your position, Laramie.  (Perhaps Micah will
provide you with more support.)

--Ham