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

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 01 2005 - 21:24:13 GMT

  • Next message: Rebecca Temmer: "Re: MD Quality, DQ and SQ"

    > [Arlo previously]
    > 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?
    >
    > [Platt]
    > You got it.
    >
    > [Arlo]
    > Well, go figure. Was "calculus" sitting there too? Or just the general MOQ
    > levels?

    Everything was there waiting to come into being from responses to DQ.

    > [Arlo previously]
    > This reply makes no sense. You said, in an anti-emergence criticism, that
    > your disagreement was that you believed "it was all there from the
    > beginning". What "it" was all there?

    > [Platt]
    > Experience, i.e. Quality.
    >
    > [Arlo]
    > Was my "experience" of writing this email "there from the beginning"?

    No.

    > [Platt]
    > Experience = Dynamic Quality. Your experience is DQ and yes it was there
    > there from the beginning, as was the DQ for Mr. Harley or whoever assembled
    > the first Harley motorcycle.
    >
    > [Arlo]
    > Tell me, if it was all there from the beginning, why did it bother to
    > create inorganic, and then biological, and then social, and then
    > intellectual levels?

    That's what it took to become what we know today. Why? I don't know. Why
    do chickens need eggs to be? You tell me.

    > [Arlo previously]
    > As I've been saying from day one, the MOQ shows that the emergence of
    > "higher order organisms" (next level up) derives from collective activity
    > on the previous level. Then, what we consider "individuals" on that newly
    > emerged level, in collective activity, give rise to an even "higher order
    > organism". This is explained very clearly in Lila.

    Yes, but why?

    > [Platt]
    > Nonsense. Pirsig explained that in the MOQ all "organisms" exist only in
    > the material world, all societies (and ideas) exist only in the mental
    > world.
    >
    > [Arlo]
    > Pirsig himself uses the word "organism" to describe emergent social
    > patterns. "Yet the social pattern of the city devours their lives for its
    > own purposes just as surely as farmers devour the flesh of farm animals. A
    > higher organism is feeding upon a lower one and accomplishing more by doing
    > so than the lower organism can accomplish alone."
    >
    > He says the relationship between the emergent intellctual level and the
    > lower social level is analogous to the social-biological relationship. I
    > agree with Pirsig, it makes sense to think of these newly emerged patterns
    > as organisms.

    Show me where he says intellectual patterns are organisms.

    > [Arlo]
    > But the socially constructed software that is "Platt" is at a higher level
    > than the cell collective that underlies it.
    >
    > [Platt]
    > And you continue to blow up that lead balloon.
    >
    > [Arlo]
    > As Pirsig says, "The language of mental intelligence has nothing to say to
    > the cells directly. They don't understand it. The language of the cells has
    > nothing to say to the mind directly. It doesn't speak that language either.
    > They are completely separate patterns. At this moment, asleep, "Lila"
    > doesn't exist any more than a program exists when a computer is switched
    > off. The intelligence of her cells had switched Lila off for the night,
    > exactly the way a hardware switch turns off a computer program. The
    > language we've inherited confuses this. We say "my" body and "your" body
    > and "his" body and "her" body, but it isn't that way. That's like a FORTRAN
    > program saying, "this is my computer." "1 his body on the left," and "This
    > body on the right." That's the way to say it. This Cartesian "Me," this
    > autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs looking out
    > through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world, is just
    > completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of reality is just
    > an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This
    > Cartesian "Me" is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This body on
    > the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same
    > program, the same "Me," which doesn't belong to either of them. The "Me's"
    > are simply a program format."
    >
    > Tell me, from where does the software program that is "Platt" originate?
    > Was it hanging around since the beginning waiting to "flower" too?

    Yes, as Quality, experience, awareness, consciousness -- the source of all
    things.

    > [Arlo]
    > Just as the MOQ, or calculus, or gravity is at a higher level on the MOQ
    > than "Platt".
    >
    > [Platt]
    > Nonsense. Nothing is higher than the experience of you, me, and the man
    > over there behind the tree. Quality has us all, everyone -- past, present
    > and future..
    >
    > [Arlo]
    > Ah, yes, the Randian nonsense. Quality, indeed, has us all, and we play a
    > part in the ongoing evolution of "life", but here you go again with the
    > opining red-blood cell speech. Pirsig rightly places your exalted
    > "individual" on the social level, saying, "The strongest moral argument
    > against capital punishment is that it weakens a society's Dynamic
    > capability-its capability for change and evolution."

    You conveniently left out, "A tribe can change its values only person by
    person and someone has to be first." I don't know why keep avoiding that.
    Seems clear enough to me. On second thought, I do know why.

    > There is a lot said in that. Namely that "individuals" constitute the
    > red-blood cells (or perhaps more apt, the DNA) for the organism that is
    > society. Killing individuals weakens society the same way killing DNA
    > weakens the biological level.

    Not the same at all. "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason
    (not to kill an individual): societies and thoughts and principles
    themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These patterns can't
    by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being
    can do that." (Lila, 13, parens added)

    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 Dec 02 2005 - 02:06:59 GMT