In a message dated 11/27/99 4:00:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Jackbrn1o@aol.com writes:
> I think we're at the point where we must agree to disagree. I mean, to
play
> on your analogy of a sports team; it absolutely makes sense to me that if
> "every player on a team is great" then - yes - the team would be great.
You obviously never pay attention to team sports. There are numerous
examples of great players being put together and not doing well. Look under
any recent news reports under New York Rangers (Hockey), Los Angeles Dodgers
(Baseball), Los Angeles Lakers (basketball), and Oakland Raiders (well, a few
years ago). These teams were predicted on several occasions to be World
Championship contenders, but several of them have even missed the playoffs
and therefore, not even been in contention. This has gone on a long time
(all those upset victories by amazing underdogs - read about the "Miracle on
Ice").
The best analogy I can think of right now is one which I read of, but can't
recall the exact people who were involved. It might even been in one of the
Pirsig books (I honestly can't remember) A society dinner was going on and
was attended by two of the greatest scientific minds of the time. The
hostess got them together and hoped some fantastic new discovery would
entail. When she asked them at the end of the night what they discussed, she
found, that all they talked about was baseball scores (or something).
The statement I don't understand is your accusation of not keeping the MOQ
divisions in mind. To me, Platt's discourse has been way more in line to the
MOQ than yours. But then, Platt has already answered that quite nicely.
One thing I would like to note is the fact that Issac Newton considered his
greatest works as his RELIGIOUS WRITTINGS, which of course no one really
cares about. But back in the times, his religious writings had a profound
influence on science. There have been many people who have wondered if
Newton was not as zealous to prove his religious faith (perhaps fearing the
problems of Galileo or Copernicus) he would have furthered scientific and
mathematical knowledge 50 or 100 years.
This is not a result of a collective intellect.
I want to again restate an axiom of mine that I believe takes it's heart from
the MOQ. The primary goal of any level is the continuation of that level (at
any cost). It came to an observation of mine about social institutions when
I realized it fits all the levels. But social groups have a built-in need
for stability and therefore, a desire to keep the status quo. The
intellectual level has a built-in need for growth in knowledge. But the
intellect itself lives in the individual. The fact that there is a body of
knowledge that exists outside the mind does not mean it is given to the
Social Level.
While your "collective unconsious" might exist, I believe it to be entirely
Static. I believe it has more to do with the Mythos/Logos discussion from
the archives.
Please respond to the above if you wish to go further (No one seems to think
I have anything worthwhile to say anyway).
xacto
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST