[MD] atheistic and content

[MarshaV]

Hi Arlo,

I will consider what you've written.  My first favorite philosopher was Nietzsche: 'God is dead!',  being against slave mentality/moratlity, against an anti-collectivist and against democracy.  I've often wanted to agree with Platt and Ham about the individual, but I also am convinced of the Buddhist's no-self.  I bet the MoQ can reconciles this, but I cannot see it yet.   Nietzsche thought the Übermensch of the future would be beyond rationality and possess a strong intuition.  I think this works well for the arhat, and following DQ and morality will be served.   I've only just begun to think about this.  Can these two favorite philosophers be reconciled?  Maybe?  Maybe not?  Where?  Any thought?   


Marsha
 
 




On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha to Ham]
> It would be more like seeing would be unique from your individual eyes and point-of-view... But still no self.... What would you say about this?
> 
> [Arlo interjects]
> Well, I think you are pointing in the right direction, if I understand you. As biologically-bounded beings we are (of course) bound to have unique experiences as we navigate different perspective-bound paths "in the world". My eyes reflect patterns to my brain that are unique to the angle, light, distance, etc. between them and the patterns in my view. But, happily!, this biologically-bounded unique trajectory is not all we are. No, no, no. In the process of appropriating what Pirsig refers to as "the collective consciousness", we encode our experiences using social symbols, and as such the patterns that amass in our brain as combinations of the social/individual "reality" of our being. The "self", as such, is a social construct, one that we learn to refer to to organize our thoughts and memories; retaining uniqueness by virtue of our biologically-bound apartness, but retaining sociality by virtue of our culturally-bound assimilation. That is, we construct our "selves" and our thoughts socially, but this social construction builds from the unique, biologically-bound sense input our body receives.
> 
> This is why those who beat the "individual v. collective drum" are wasting their time chasing after, what is apparent to be, a politically-guided ideological strawman. The entirety of the MOQ, from top to bottom, is a dance of larger patterns forming from the collective activity of smaller, individual patterns. It is this dialogic activity that should be the focus of inquiry. Isolating any "individual" pattern is merely a matter of focus. A amoeba is an "individual pattern" until you focus in more and realize it is a collective of smaller "individual" patterns engaged in a beautiful collective dance.
> 
> But of course for saying this, the ideologues of The Glorious Individual will simply start bleating "evil collectivist!". Wait and see...
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___