From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 21:49:06 GMT
Steve said:
In Wim's formulation, I think it follows that an individual is "latched"
through "unconscious copying of behavior." If I think of a person as a
biological pattern with a personality then this makes sense to me. A
person's personality is gradually latched onto existing biological patterns
through unconscious copying.
DMB says:
I found Wim's formulation so confusing, so wrong, and so bizzare that I'd
hardly know where to begin to untangle it.
Steve said:
Since all people are on the same level, then it follows that two people can
only be compared in terms of stability/versatility/receptiveness to change.
DMB says:
All people are on the same level?! No way. The characters in Lila are
examples of what people at different levels look like. There is biological
Lila, social Rigel and the intellectual author. The interactions and
conflicts between these fictional examples are supposed to show us what
these distictions look like in real people, in the real world. The whole
point of making distinctions between levels of static patterns is to
demonstate that people are NOT at the same levels. The many examples of
actual historical 20th century conflicts are also included to show that
people are NOT all on the same level.
Steve said:
(Didn't we eventually agree that every person is a social pattern of value?
Someone posted a quote (from Lila's child I think) to back this up. I
haven't been able to find it.)
DMB says:
Some have asserted such a thing, but I've never seen anything to back it up
and I strongly suspect there is no such quote. I'd like to challenge
everyone who holds this view to back it up. (Quips like "last time I looked"
are not persuasive in the least.)
Steve said:
If the individual and the mob are both social patterns of value, then since
the individual is more receptive to change he is more moral. Would you
agree?
DMB says:
I DON'T think we can rightly say that individuals or mobs are at any
particular level. Again, an individual or group can be biologically,
socially or intellectually oriented. It totally depends on the specific
individual or group in question. Hitler was an individual, but was not
intellectual. The scientific community is a collective group, but is
intellectual. Think of it this way; individuality and collectivity appear at
every level, even the inorganic where we find both individual stars and
groups them known as galaxies. I would challenge everyone who holds a
contrary view to think of something, anything in the universe that is BOTH
and individual thing AND also part of a larger collective system. On the
inorganic level there are individual atoms and planets composed of countless
atoms. On the organic level there are individual cells and there are
organisms composed of countless cells. On the social level there are
individual citizens and then there is the larger society in which they have
a role. There are individual words and entire languages. On the intellectual
level there are individual ideas and there are larger systems of thought.
The distinction between individuality and collectivity simply has nothing to
do with the distinction between Pirsig's levels. Individuality and
collectivity are just a basic features of static reality, at every level,
from top to bottom.
Thanks for your time, gang.
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 21:50:15 GMT