[MD] atheistic and content

[John Carl]

Oh piffle Arlo,

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> 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.
>



Well I say much the same here, but I disagree with your characterization
below...




> As biologically-bounded beings we are (of course) bound to have unique
> experiences as we navigate different perspective-bound paths "in the world".
>




What means this "biologicaly bound"?  "Binding" seems disparaging to me, as
if < poor, poor intellect... TRAPPED in this filthy biological shell>

What a load of crap and I apologize profusefly for much of it for I blame
christian metaphysics of "fallen nature" as its progenitor.

But regardless of origin, I do not hold with the idea of being "biologically
bound"  Far truer, to my thinking, is that we are intellectually and
socially bound, but liberated by true life-giving (that is biological)
principles.





> 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,



I'm following you pretty much, but I"m not so sure about "apartness" being
anything but a social construct of some sort.  It takes "being-with-other"
for realization of self.  I think there are biological patterns that do not
differentiate self like this.  Plants seem to have an actual emotional
mattrix, but it's difficult to construe this to a full sense of self as we
normally talk.

Tho, I don't mind if you try...



> 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.
>
>

I guess I understand what you mean then by "biologically bound" as the
sensory inputs in our meat machine - the toys of empiricism, in other words.


I believe the social patterns and definitions so overwhelm the self, that
they are the main culprits in its creation.  That's me and Royce, through
and through so you probably aren't surprised or anything.  But the only
thing I'd add, is that if I hypothesize a brain in a jar, with no sensory
inputs except the programmatic abstractions of a virtual world, would that
brain contain a "self" with no biological bounding at all?

If you think yes, then perhaps we agree.



> 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.
>


This is something very good to touch upon, and I would like to offer a
reformulation of the conflict.  It's not collective vs. the individual.
It's the collective vs. the community.

Individuals are creations of communities.  The better the community is at
creating true individuals, then the better the community is.

Collectives don't create individuals.  Collectives create clones.  The
difference between a collective and a community is like the difference
between a cancer and an organ.  An organ has a function that serves a higher
purpose than itself.  For instance, the MoQ Community would be dedicated to
serving a higher goal - Quality.  The MoQ collective would be dedicated to
serving simply self-interests.

Every Community, in fact, IS an indivdual entity with many of the same
aspects of individuality that make up it's "organs".    Every individual is
also a community, for we are each of us in our being, a reaction to our
social inputs, our past, our aspirations and what we deem our individual
selves are these communities of beingnesses.





>
> But of course for saying this, the ideologues of The Glorious Individual
> will simply start bleating "evil collectivist!". Wait and see...
>
>


wait and see is a GOOD motto Arlo.

I agree completely.


John






>
> 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
>