[MD] Individual v Collective

[David M]

Hi Mike & all

Like to say Mike is on the money here. This is also
the period leading to  the rise ofthe middle classes asserting
their individual freedom from aristocratic rule, & revolution, etc.
A good book on this stuff is Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self.
There are of course Christian sources relating to self-discipline here.

Regards
David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Hamilton" <thethemichael at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Individual v Collective


> Ian, Arlo
> 
> Thanks for prodding me to clarify a bit.
> 
> Ian wrote:
>> But you're not suggesting humans had no such self-awareness before
>> Descartes are you ? Yes Descartes analysed and tried to formalise it,
>> and probably kicked-off a period of obsession with the mental subject
>> distinct from physical objects - so he influenced how subsequent
>> culture viewed that self-awareness, but it didn't evolve with him ...
>> languages still used "I", "me" "we" "they" "it" concepts before then
>> didn't they ?
> 
> It's hard to describe the difference between the subjective awareness
> I've been banging on about and the rudimentary self-awareness
> expressed in concepts like "I", "me", "we", "they", "it". I can easily
> clarify that I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT saying that there was no awareness or
> consciousness prior to Descartes and subjective awareness. Quite the
> opposite. What I'm trying to describe is a new _kind_ of awareness
> that emerged around the time of Descartes. Thinking about it, I think
> you're right, Ian - this subjective awareness must have been knocking
> around prior to Descartes. In all likelihood, it had been springing up
> intermittently in various places for centuries. As you say, what he
> did was to formalise it, and at the same time to hugely facilitate its
> spread into almost every nook and cranny of the Western mythos.
> Descartes was a big heavy static latch for individual subjective
> awareness and SOM.
> 
> Arlo wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that people did not have a sense of themselves as
>> "self-aware" before Descartes? Do you not think, for example, that (the
>> original Greek) Phaedrus saw himself as soley an ant in a colony?
> 
> I don't know enough about Phaedrus to understand why you picked him as
> an example, but again, I will concede that there were probably
> isolated cases of subjective awareness prior to Descartes.
> 
> I'm still struggling, though, because I haven't properly defined that
> subjective awareness. I'll try: I'm talking about alienation from
> nature and the body. Alienation from the world. Coupled with this is
> something I wrote about a while back: the feeling that our impulses,
> instincts, inspiration, feelings, thoughts and emotions arise from
> within ourselves, rather than from nature. The feeling that we are
> autonomous decision-makers rather than puppets of society or the
> cosmos. Judging from bits of this description, I have to agree with
> you to some extent, Arlo, that this perspective is a "malady".
> However, we need to appreciate where we'd be without this malady. For
> one thing, science would be virtually impossible. For another thing...
> well, see what you make of this excellent piece of lunatic philosophy
> by Jeff Nuttall:
> 
> ----------------
> "To dissolve the world, the self, the ego into the general vibrancy of
> the cosmos is to refuse the unique function of being physical ('like a
> human'). That the Id, the energies, the fundamental self, is nothing
> more than a part of the sum of cosmic energy is, I believe, true. That
> the conscious, the self-conscious mind, the ego, the _identity_, is an
> obstruction to one's union with the cosmos is also true. What is
> missed by the mystics, however, is that there is a purpose, and a
> _divine_ purpose, to the human alienation from the cosmos. The
> recognition, definition of Being, in wonderment and ecstasy can only
> be carried out by a conscious entity alienated from the eternal
> totality. You can't dig It if you _are_ It. No man beholds his own
> face.
> 
> "Self-consciousness is, then, the faculty which (a) divides human
> beings off from Being and thus (b) bestows upon humanity that sense of
> _otherness_ from Being, that distancing from the cosmos wheeby the
> worshipping, _identifying_ reaction of wonderment becomes possible.
> _True wonderment is not a realization but a hopeless ecstasy of
> longing_. To satisfy that longing is to terminate wonderment and leave
> its cosmic function unfulfilled."
> ----------------
> 
> I've made my (Jeff's) point, but the following paragraphs are too
> inspiring for me to be able to resist continuing the quote. All this
> is very reminiscent of ZMM, but I think it adds something valuable --
> about the Quality of alienation:
> 
> ----------------
> "The proper functioning of wonderment is enfuelled by that continuous
> illumination from the cosmic self, the quick, the automatic spiritual
> self. In modern technological living the spiritual cosmic self has
> become so estranged that the wonderment faculty was near-completely
> numbed. You _can not_ regard the world in terms of its utilitarian
> potential, in terms of how well you can harness it to still your petty
> fears, and, at the same time maintain your proper function as the
> agent of wonderment. It was, then, necessary to re-establish that
> contact with the cosmic self, to revive one's faculty of wonder. It
> was necessary to turn to 'inner space', to bathe oneself in the
> virulent music streaming like sperm and light from the stratospheres
> of the mind. LSD has brought this awareness about.
> 
> "It is now necessary to come back from inner space. Having revived the
> faculty of wonderment it is necessary to apply it, to channel one's
> cosmic self through one's unique identity, to illuminate and
> strengthen the currently despised ego and thus to _recognize_ the same
> cosmic energy manifest in the splendours of the _outer material
> world_. If we cannot translate the spiritual into terms of
> constructive physical action, if spiritual vision cannot inform our
> physical ocular vision, then the spiritual is none of our damn
> business."
> (Jeff Nuttall, Bomb Culture, 1970, p241-2)
> ----------------
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 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/
>