From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 19:19:08 BST
[Platt]
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.
[Arlo]
Of course they don't. That's the definition of "emergence". The individuals have
no idea what greater organism their collective will create. At each level,
"individuals" can't conceive of anything greater than themselves (sound
familiar?).
Pirsig, "If it's possible to imagine two red blood cells sitting side by side
asking, "Will there ever be a higher form of evolution than us?" and looking
around and seeing nothing, deciding there isn't, then you can imagine the
ridiculousness of two people walking down a street of Manhattan asking if there
will ever be any form of evolution higher than "man," meaning biological man.
Biological man doesn't invent cities or societies any more than pigs and
chickens invent the farmer that feeds them."
The same hold true for emergence at each of the MOQ levels.
As for "sacrificing the individual in the name of a greater good", you surprise
me. You'd sacrifice an individual "germ" to save a "biological man". One
individual (the emerged collective of biological man) is at a higher level than
the individual germ. You argue this point frequently. The thing you miss is
that other germs don't sacrifice this germ. They are on the same moral level,
and so for them it is not "moral" for one germ to sacrifice another. Each
particular germ, to other germs on that level, possesses a unique ability to
potentially mutate into some new, stronger strain of germ. Thus, for one germ
to kill another, according to the MOQ, is immoral since it destroys a potential
for evolution.
But for a higher level organism to sacrifice a germ to save itself is completely
moreal. Again, the same holds morally true of all the levels.
To bring the analogy up to social individuals, I could no more sacrifice "Platt"
morally than one germ could sacrifice another. "We" are comparable on the MOQ
hierarchy, and sacrificing you would destroy a potential source of evolution.
But... "Platts" and "Arlos" and the like have indeed been "sacrificed" by
Intellectual Patterns. We continue to be. Your Iraqi war is one (albeit to me
sad) example. The Intellectual Pattern of "freedom" is sacrificing
"individuals" to ensure its survival every day. Or is it the pattern of
"corporate economics", I'm not entirely sure. "Individuals" , to use your
understanding, are sacrificed all the time by intellectual patterns. And,
according to the MOQ, it is moral for them to do so when the intellectual
pattern is threatened, because it (a collective formed of social individuals)
is at a higher level than those social individuals. To restate, the
preservation of the intellectual pattern "freedom" takes precedence over the
life of any one particluar social individual. Agree? Or no?
[Platt]
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.
[Arlo]
Where on earth do you come up with this? I don't denigrate the value held by
individual cells, but I recognize that values held by the collectively created
biological man are exponentially greater. And the values held by social
patterns (such as the "I") are even more valuable. And finally, the value of
Intellectual patterns (science, philosophy, etc) are even more valuable.
Sometimes I wonder if you read the same MOQ as I did, that'd you make such a
obviously deception towards what I've said.
[Arlo previously]
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.
[Platt]
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.
[Arlo]
This may be the Randian position, but it isn't Pirsig's. "Truth is an
intellectual pattern of values." "It's this intellectual pattern of amoral
"objectivity" that is to blame for the social deterioration of America, because
it has undermined the static social values necessary to prevent deterioration."
"He is just a person who is valuing intellectual patterns that, because they
are outside the range of our own culture." " Insanity on the other hand is an
intellectual pattern." "It is pinioned to a subject-object truth system which
declares that one particular intellectual pattern is real and all others are
illusions." From these quotes, and others, it is evident that "intellectual
patterns", or "individuals on the intellectual level" (one particular
intellectual pattern) are not "Platt's mind" and "Arlo's mind".
[Arlo previously]
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.).
[Platt]
To restate my entire premise, you cannot have the many without the one.
[Arlo]
And you can't have evolutionary metaphysics without those "ones" forming
collectives that emerge on the next level as "more valuable".
[Platt previously]
I know. You, like Marx, worship the collective, i.e. social values.
[Arlo previously]
C'mon, Platt. You gotta stop this fear tactic approach. I don't "worship
the collective", and certainly not "social values"
[Platt]
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?
[Arlo]
I quote many people in favorable lights. I've stated that I agree with Marx on
many points (on labor alienation and the historical dialectic method, as well
as his agreement with a socio-cultural basis of "mind"), and disagree with him
on many others (I think his reduction of everything to economics is excessive,
and I disagree with him that a violent revolution is the only way to bring
about a better society).
You're right, Platt. Anyone who talks about concern for the poor, or social
values as compassion and caring is secretly a dictator wanting to round up all
the Platts in the world and send them off to a gulag. By the way, Pirsig talked
a lot about caring too. So did Jesus. And Ghandi. And Black Elk. If this is the
company my words keep, that is fine with me.
[Arlo previously]
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.
[Platt]
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. :-)
[Arlo]
Good. Now if we can agree that those "individuals", by virtue of forming
collectives of some sort, give rise to "individuals" at the next level. And
that those "higher level individuals", although fully dependent on the lower
level individuals, is an organism of higher value, we'd be getting somewhere.
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 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 19:34:13 BST