Re: MD Individuals and Collectives

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 13:38:38 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of"

    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.

    My position all along has been that nobody asks the proton whether it
    believes it's value is "suddenly a hell of a lot greater when it forms
    water." Maybe that proton would rather become part of DNA. By ignoring the
    individual, or worse, by sacrificing the individual in the name of some
    "greater good," all sorts of horrible things can happen, as the history of
    the 20th century so amply demonstrates.

    > 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.

    Pirsig wrote a hilarious account of what is "valuable" to cells."These
    cells make sweat and snot and phlegm. They belch and bleed and fuck and
    fart and piss and shit and vomit and squeeze out more bodies just like
    themselves all covered with blood and placental slime that grow and
    squeeze out more bodies, on and on." (Lila, 15) I guess Arlo would
    denigrate the values held by individual cells. But, without them, he
    wouldn't be here.
     
    > 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.

    At the intellectual level I'd argue that an "individual" would be my mind,
    your mind, and every other individual's mind which, one by one, comes to
    understand intellectual patterns like math, chaos theory and MOQ which
    were initially created by the mind of someone first, and then spread by
    the minds of person by person.

    > 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.).

    To restate my entire premise, you cannot have the many without the one.

    > [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"

    Fear tactic? Have you not quoted Marx in a positive light? Have you not
    expressed concern about such collectives as the "poor" and been critical
    of the such collectives as the "privileged?" Have you not lectured me on
    such social values and compassion and caring?

    > 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.
     
    Well as you suggest, the lower individual is key to the creating and
    sustaining the next higher level individual. I like your emphasis on the
    individuals at all levels. :-)

    Platt

    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 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 15:01:04 BST