From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 20:17:55 BST
Here's an idea:
A man is a forest of earth, water, trees, branches, leaves,
the individual is what we call a group of patterns that have all the above
plus a red bud
before this it was just a group that we call a life form, a cellular
organism
or an animal or a member of a species, but not yet a fully developed/evolved
social
and eventually intellectual-individual.
Individual does not mean single example of a species it is a more complex
term and implies and is insperable from being intellectual in Pirsig's sense
of that term.
When the non-individual goes against the social norm it is a crime against
society, when the intellectual-individual does it it may be DQ evolution.
You cannot be ionvolved in DQ intellectual evolution unless you are
an individual, they are in my mind inseperable, so far those that do not see
this are just showing wholly thinking. Don't be insulted, just start
thinking a
bit harder. The point is obviously not that an individual cannot apply
biological and social values in their actions/creations but that to be
intellectual you have to be individual, and individual is necessary for the
intellectual
and emerges from the social and therefore the individual is the Other of the
social
and tied to the 4th level.
got it?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:16 PM
Subject: RE: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
> Paul, Platt and all thread readers:
>
> Paul said to Platt:
> .......................it makes no sense to agree that, on the one hand,
> individuals are composed of static patterns from *all levels* but, on
> the other, an individual is the defining characteristic of *the fourth
> level*. That is what I do not understand. I think you are trying to have
> it both ways.
>
> dmb says:
> Exactly. The idea that the fourth level is distinguished by the individual
> contradicts Pirsig's assertion that each of us is a forest of static
> patterns from all levels. Not to mention his assertion that the individual
> is an illusion! This confusion leads Platt to make assertions like this
> one...
>
> Platt previously explained:
> > Fame and fortune are social level values. An individual can
intellectually
> > choose biological values, social values or intellectual values to
pursue.
> > His intentions are often intellectual, that is, he can rationalize his
> > behavior, like gamblers and criminals do. But it's his behavior that
> > determines what value level applies.
>
> dmb continues:
> Intellectually choose biological values? Rationalize like a criminal? I
> agree that a person's values are reflected in the choices made and actions
> taken, but its way too confusing to refer to any choice as an intellectual
> one. I mean, people make choices all the time without intellectual values
> coming into the equation. I think we can rightly call it an intellectual
> choice only when intellectual values are chosen. And we can't call it an
> intellectual choice just because a person made the choice. One can choose
> from any part of the complex ecology of the total (little) self and its
the
> part chosen, not the chooser that matters. I mean, even if Einstein
> "decides" to get laid or rob a bank, its still not intellectual.
>
> Platt said:
> What puts the individual at the top level is his role as the source of
> intellect, of ideas, without which the MOQ doesn't work or even exist at
> all. (I don't think ZMM and Lila were written by a committee.)
>
> Paul replied:
> Well, if an individual is composed of patterns from all levels, and the
> most evolved and therefore superior part of an individual is that they
> are a collection of ideas, then "intellectual level" is a much clearer
> and precise definition of the top level than "individual level," is it
> not?
>
> dmb says:
> Exactly. If an individual is composed of all four levels, its confusing to
> use "individual" to characterize just one of the four.
>
> Paul continued:
> The other thing to consider is a point I made before - that intellectual
> patterns, the most successful ones, are not individual at all, they are
> the patterns that seem to "transcend" individual opinion, as Socrates
> tried to argue. (Of course, he thought this was because truth was some
> kind of revelation from a divine intelligence that we may recollect.
> However, in MOQ terms, with all of the caveats about Absolute Truth, the
> general truths of intellectual quality can be said to "transcend" the
> particular interests of social quality.)
>
> dmb says:
> Right. This is where the notion of SINGLE individuals opposed to
COLLECTIVE
> society begins to break down. Its just a fact that intellectual static
> patterns are as real as rocks and trees. There is a structure and strength
> to high quality intellectual patterns. They're like living things and
> they're like precision parts. And, as Paul explains, intellectual
stability
> and progress both depend on a highly discipline collective effort. In
other
> words, intellectual quality and individuality don't necessarily go
together
> and in everyday reality, individuality among intellectuals can be quite
> destructive. Even creative thinkers are creating WITHIN a higly structured
> and collective world of static pattens...
>
> Paul said:
> And from a practical perspective, imagine trying to plot a trajectory to
> Mars with a bunch of people who all had their own little theory of
> physics - "Gravity? My system doesn't need gravity! It's the 17th
> dimension you have to account for...." I know there are many competing
> theories, and this is part of evolution, but one or two usually succeed
> for long periods - not one per person.
>
> dmb says:
> Again, I think that's quite right. New theories come from creative
thinkers
> now and then, but mostly these thinkers have to first get with the
program,
> they have to be educated enough to be familiar with the current theories
and
> such. Its a building process that requires on to understand and then add
to
> an existing structure. New additions are added all the time without any
> major changes. There are a number of times in history that seemingly small
> improvements have an impact wide enough and profound enough to constitute
a
> paradigm shift, the shift to a genuinely different worldview, but these
can
> be counted on one hand. Even when a creative thinker comes along with a
> better idea, it simply doesn't have any staying power unless and until the
> idea is accepted and adopted collectively. If it sticks they call her a
> genuis, but if it doesn't, she was just wrong or crazy.
>
> And so it is with the intellectual static patterns that are the MOQ. It
has
> precision parts but is also like a living thing in its own right. Either
> way, you gotta respect its integrity, its shape and structure before you
> even BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT making improvements. I think that anything less
> demonstrates a lack of respect for intellectual values, not just Pirsig or
> the MOQ. It like the data-faking scientist. He demonstrate a lack of love
> for the scientific process itself, not just the particular experiment
> involved. Don't you think?
>
> And if that data-faking scientist fudged to get noticed, get published,
get
> rich or become famous, has he not made a social level choice? Hasn't he
put
> social values over intellectual values and thereby made an immoral,
> anti-intellectual choice? I think so. To call this an intellectual choice
or
> to equate individuality with intellectual values is way too confusing. It
> mischaracterizes the nature of the 4th level and vastly overestimates the
> importance of the individual. It seems to put an illusion at the highest
and
> most central place in the MOQ. In short, it demonstrates a lack of respect
> for the MOQ's moral and ontological structures.
>
> Thanks,
> dmb
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 21:40:12 BST