[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[Hamilton Priday]

Hi there, John --

My message file is so loaded, I mistook this one for an earlier note from 
you!

On Friday, 1/31/14 at 1:00 PM John Carl wrote:
>
> Yes in fact I'm getting quite backed up.  LS was much quieter.

I take it 'LS' is short for Lila's Squad.  I never watch that. 
Incidentally, I received a personal note yesterday from someone named Tim 
who "couldn't thank me enough" for introducing him to Donald Hoffman.  He 
also mentioned LS, but seemed to know me from the past.  "I've always had a 
great deal of respect for you," he wrote.  I dimly recall conversing with a 
Tim on this forum some years ago.  Can you fill me in on who he is? 
(Possibly a MoQ Discuss dropout?)

> John:
> If the individual had no past memory of human society, then he would
> not see himself as human.  Since he is a human then he would not see his
> true self.  He would undoubtedly have  the brain and attitude of a clever
> animal but even animals, or at least mammals, are socialized by their
> mothers to an extent.  I doubt a human who was completely bereft of social
> patterns would even be able to think of anything, much less conceive
> himself.

What exactly is your "true self"?  I have trouble defining selfness in any 
other way than as the locus of cognizant awareness.  When experience is 
added to this awareness, it takes on the dimensions of time and space in 
which everything is an otherness to the self.

> Furthermore the conception of ourselves is creatively influenced by our
> relations with others.  If you were surrounded by a bunch of 
> serious-minded
> puritans you'd be seen (and come to see yourself) as a hare brained
> flibbertygibbet.  If you were surrounded by a bunch of dope smoking
> hippies, a staid, stuck-in-the-mud square.  Our conception of ourself is
> formed out of contrasts and comparisons with others.  With no others, no
> conception.  That's the way I see it.

I'm not demeaning the influence of parental love and social relationships in 
shaping one's attitudes and behavior, but these are mainly cultural 
amenities acquired in adolescence.  I think it's more a 'you'd be seen as' 
than 'you'd come to believe yourself as' conception.  At base we're all 
individuals, and the concept of belonging to a collective society is 
rationalized from experience.

Ham:
>> Descartes was trying to establish what he knew beyond all uncertainty.
>> It turned out to be that HE alone was the subject of all that he
>> experienced.   And that conclusion paved the way for Donald Hoffman and 
>>  >> others to posit a "conscious reality".
>
>> Descartes was trying to establish what he knew beyond all uncertainty.
>> It turned out to be that HE alone was the subject of all that he
>> experienced.   And that conclusion paved the way for Donald Hoffman and 
>>  >> others to posit a "conscious reality".

John:
> Ok, I see what you mean.  I hadn't thought of it that way.

Previously:
>> I come to the conclusion that while Sensibility is the foundation for
>> Beingness, Beingness is also the foundation for Sensibility - they are
>> codependent.  This was just mentioned in response to Craig - Bob Lanza's
>> theory of the Biocentric Universe makes the most sense to me so far,
>> cosmologically speaking.
>>
>> There is a relative otherness that is useful and creative, don't you
>> think?

Don’t get me wrong, John.  A relational world is the only environment in 
which a cognitive agent can freely evaluate otherness in all its 
experiential manifestations.  Relative otherness is not only useful; it is 
essential for the development of value discrimination.  A self-supporting 
relational universe whose laws and principles are consistently reliable is 
what Schroeder points to as the "wisdom" revealed by Science -- his 'hidden 
face of God'.

>> Yes, sensibility negates the being of the otherness experienced, allowing
>> us to conceptualize an object by its relative value to us.  In the 
>> process
>> of experiencing we acquire the finite value of the thing, system or 
>> person
>> so conceptualized.  In that sense, WE are the "creators" of our own
>> reality.

John:
> It's interesting that you say this in the plural form "WE".  For we
> constantly check and compare and build our conceptualized sensory input
> with others.   My conclusion then is that reality is not an individual
> construct but a social one.

I tend to regard existential reality as a "universal" construct, rather than 
"social".  To be sure, individuals collectively consume, study and 
manipulate this earthly domain for their benefit.  However, the fact that 
individuals borrow their human beingness from the same organic matter that 
other creatures do would seem to rule out your theory that physical reality 
is a social construct -- unless, of course, the "society" you have in mind 
encompasses all living species.

> J:  If I call it moral to steal my neighbor's car, the state will soon
> rectify my stance.  Thus again, morality is a social realization rather
> than a personal one.

To the extent that morality is a system of laws, the state will prevail. 
But even laws are derived from individual values, albeit codified to 
represent the 'moral majority'.  Enlightened nations have struggled for 
centuries to reconcile individual liberty with the ruling laws.  America, 
for example, was founded as a nation ruled by laws rather than men.  (Excuse 
the plug, but you might find next week's Value Page of interest in this 
context.)

> John:
> I see full well what you mean about the MoQ's community of
> interpretation.  It is sad indeed to contemplate the finest tool ever 
> given
> for escaping the trap of dogmatic orthodoxy turned into another dogmatic
> orthodoxy.

Indeed!

> Thanks for the thought-provoking insights Ham,

Dittos to you, John.  I respect people with an open mind.

Essentially yours,
Ham