From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Sep 08 2005 - 17:59:07 BST
All,
Platt and I have been discussing the "individual" and the "collective" on
this thread. I'm renaming it to see if anyone else wants to jump in.
[Platt]
>I emphasize the primary, the individual, you the secondary, the collective.
>So be it.
[Arlo]
What I try to do is emphasize that value does not reside in either the
individual OR the collective. But, rather, that the value of the individual
increases exponentially in the collective. The value of the "individual",
as I am arguing, is not lost in some collective stew. The value of that
proton is suddenly a hell of lot greater when it forms "water", something
that higher level patterns (biological) depend on for their continuance.
The cells in your body become more valuable when they form a "Platt" than
they ever would be if they didn't. Your "biological" body become
significantly more valuable when it becomes part of social level patterns.
And your socially-formed "I" becomes more valuable when it contributes to
the evolving collective Intellect. At each level, "individuals" emerge from
collectives of individuals on the previous layer. These "individuals" have
greater value than the "individuals" on the previous layer.
At the Intellectual level, I suppose, I'd argue that an "individual" would
be "math" or "chaos theory" or "MOQ". Each of these "individuals" is formed
by the collectivization of "individuals" on the social level, which are in
turn formed by the collectivization of "individuals" on the biological
level, which are in turn formed by the collectivization of "individuals" on
the inorganic level.
To restate my entire premise, then, what you call the "individual" I say
refers to the "social individual", which is formed by the collectivization
of "biological individuals" (language, symbolic semiosis, all that jazz).
From the collective formations of social individuals emerge "intellectual
individuals" (math, MOQ, science, etc.).
[Arlo previously]
> > Ps, Ns and Es collectize into "atoms", which collectivize into "molecules"
> > like H20, which collectivize into "water", etc. At each level of
> > collectivization value is exponentially increased. The collective whole is
> > greater than the sum of its parts... no matter how wonderous one particular
> > proton happens to believe itself to be.
[Platt]
>I know. You, like Marx, worship the collective, i.e. social values.
[Arlo]
C'mon, Platt. You gotta stop this fear tactic approach. I don't "worship
the collective", and certainly not "social values". I value the
evolutionary, exponential increase in value when collectives of individuals
at one level form something greater than themselves, which emerges as
"individuals" on the next level. This is how I see the evolutionary
metaphysics of Pirsig. An "individual" on a higher level has greater value
than an "individual" on a lower level, but those higher level individuals
are formed by collectives of lower-level individuals. Like a tree emerges
from the soil, on which it is fully dependant, but of greater value.
As to this conversation...
> > [Platt previously]
> > But, I gotta admire the way you beat a simple analogy to death.
> > Very creative. :-)
> >
> > [Arlo responded]
> > Is that an sly insult? Coming from a (gasp!) "conservative"? Or just an
> > admission of defeat?
> >
> > [Platt]
> > A revealing look at the liberal mindset. Oh yes, I'm defeated, battered,
> > and beaten, just as you and your fellow leftists would like to defeat Bush
> > and all conservatives and pack them off in boxcars to to your gulags to
> > never be heard from again.
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > That's right, Platt. My secret agenda is to send you off to a gulag. You
> > broke the code. Damn.
>
>So explain why you used the "defeat" metaphor, as if I were an enemy of
>the collective to be treated in the same way Uncle Joe Stalin, that
>prototypical Marxist, treated his opponents.
>
>Or should I not take you seriously?
Take me as seriously as you wish. But please stop this nonsensical stuff
about Stalin and sending you off to a gulag. Nothing I've said exemplifies
this. Talk about using rhetorical tactics, Platt. For someone who rails
against the "ad hominem" at every turn, you seem more than willing to
employ emotionally charged rhetoric to divert attention away from the
dialogue, and in turn employing what amounts to an "ad hominem" attack at
me, as if sly attempts to equate my position with "Uncle Joe Stalin" are
things I shouldn't take personally. Cripes, we ain't even talking politics!
Let the propaganda go, Platt, let it go.
As for saying "defeat", it was, as I said, a quid pro quo jab. You had not
replied to any of the points in my post, simply commented on my "very
creative" analogy beating. My comment was only to highlight that perhaps
you responded only in this way because you had no response otherwise. What
it has to do with "Uncle Joe Stalin" and sending you off to a gulag reveals
more about "your" mindset, Platt, than anything else... methinks, anywise.
Arlo
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 : Thu Sep 08 2005 - 18:04:13 BST