Re: MD Re: Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 12:21:10 GMT

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Re: Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level"

    [Platt]
    Good. It would be nice if you gave the creators their due.

    [Arlo]
    I do. Both the "individual" and the "collective" are the creators, or the
    creative Yin-Yang on any given MOQ level. It would be nice if you'd give credit
    where it is due, and not to some illusionary "individual" creating away in some
    vacuum.

    [Platt]
    Well, it's big of you to admit you never had a original thought in your
    head and that you are merely an echo of other individuals who did have something
    new and different to say.

    [Arlo]
    Ah, see, you continue to distort rather than see the dialectic relationship
    between the "individual" and the "collective". I never said there are no
    "original thoughts", but the ones you do have emerge out of the historical
    dialogue, and because OF the historical dialogue that is the collective
    consciousness.

    If you want to pretend that Rand's words (and Pirsig's, and the countless others
    you've read, talked to, interacted with, not to mention the structure of the
    language you've appropriated) are not part of the thoughts in your head, please
    do so if it gives you some needed "identity" isolate from the rest. But every
    time you (for example) use the word "brujo", I'll chuckle at how your thoughts
    contain Pirsig's voice, without whom you'd not have this little word or
    thought.

    [Arlo previously]
    If you are so anti-emergence, why are you so fond of an emergentist
    metaphysical hierarchy?

    [Platt]
    Because it was all there from the beginning and simply took time to
    flower, whereas for you it just emerged out of the blue..

    [Arlo]
    So there's the MOQ, sitting out in space, before time because there was no time.
    Having no mass because there was no mass. Sound to me like someone fell prey to
    the Aristotelian "The [MOQ] comes before everything else".

    Tell me Platt, where was the Intellectual level 4 billion years ago? Sitting
    around waiting for the inorganic to "flower", then the biological, then the
    social, so that it could finally apply to something?

    Thankfully, Pirsig knew better, saying of how "intellectual principles"
    (individuals on the Intellectual level) emerge from "social activity"
    (collectivity on the social level), "These rituals may be the connecting link
    between the social and intellectual levels of evolution. One can imagine
    primitive song-rituals and dance-rituals associated with certain cosmology
    stories, myths, which generated the first primitive religions. From these the
    first intellectual truths could have been derived. If ritual always comes first
    and intellectual principles always come later, then ritual cannot always be a
    decadent corruption of intellect. Their sequence in history suggests that
    principles emerge from ritual, not the other way around. That is, we don't
    perform religious rituals because we believe in God. We believe in God because
    we perform religious rituals."

    Finally, Pirsig said on the emergent relationship between the levels, "An
    excellent analogy to the independence of the levels, Phaedrus thought, is the
    relation of hardware to software in a computer." In your world, the software
    program was always there, waiting for hardware to apply itself to. In Pirsig's,
    it had emerged Dynamically.

    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 : Sun Nov 27 2005 - 13:01:35 GMT