[MD] atheistic and content

[MarshaV]

John & Arlo,


Hmmmm.  I seem to have ignored the most difficult-to-explain aspect of the 
individual, individual conscious awareness.  It's still does not represent, from 
my point-of-view, an inherently existing, independent self, 'I', whatever,,, but 
it does seem to be clearly proprietary.  


Marsha


On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:33 PM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Hi Arlo,
> 
> You make some great points, and I most definitely do not want to turn this into a political debate.
> Well, then the point I want to make to Ham is that I can agree with him sometimes when he says
> 'You know the YOU exist.', if by YOU he means in the individual, unique sensory sense.  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 18, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
> 
>> [Marsha]
>> I've often wanted to agree with Platt and Ham about the individual, but I also am convinced of the Buddhist's no-self.
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> Platt and Ham remain trapped by the political dichotomy they can't see past. To them its an absolute "either-or". Either there is nothing but the Supremacy of the Glorious Individual, or there is nothing but the Evil Collective. This is there own hang-up, I would not let it bog *you* down.
>> 
>> Platt and Ham are correct in that each "human individual" has, by virtue of it's biological boundedness, a unique sensory trajectory as it experiences "the world". There is little doubt of this. The sensory information your eyes transmit to your brain is unique to your biologically-bound perspective in the cosmos.
>> 
>> And as far as that goes, they are correct. Where they fail is in recognizing that this is only half of what makes us "us". The other half is social, and derives as the biological being appropriates a social reality, a "collective consciousness" of narratives, stories, dialogues, metaphors, art, song, dance, roles, understandings and so on.
>> 
>> It is this meeting of the unique biological-bounded sensory experience and its encoding via a socially-bound symbolic milieu that informs that "we" are.
>> 
>> This, I take it, is exactly what Pirsig meant by restating Descartes dictum as "20th century French culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am."
>> 
>> Thus there is no "self" in any objectivist sense at all. But it does hold pragmatic value to us, which is why it persists.
>> 
>> My advice is not to get bungeed up by the individual-collectivist strawman. Like all patterns, an "individual" or "collective" is merely a matter of focus. And as your focus shifts up and down, this changes accordingly. Elevating either over of the other is a political cup-trick.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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


 
___