Re: Re: MD The Transformation of Love

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 12:59:20 BST

  • Next message: Valence: "Re: MD The Transformation of Love"

    Hi Steve,

    > Platt said:
    > > Finally, a self-aware human doesn't stop at the social level. Internally
    > > you and I view our ideas as an integral part of our personalities. Viewed
    > > by others, we may be seen as purely social level creatures, mere ciphers
    > > in a sea of humanity. But that view can lead to all sorts of bad things,
    > > like Communism for starters. The sanctity of the individual, comprising
    > > all levels, is the foundation for political liberty and currently the
    > > pattern most capable of responding to DQ. Lest there be any doubt about
    > > an individual comprising all levels, consider this quote from Pirsig:
    > >
    > > "The MOQ divides the hominem, or 'individual' into four parts: inorganic,
    > > biological, social and intellectual. Once this analysis is made, the ad
    > > hominem argument can be defined more clearly: It is an attempt destroy
    > > the intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social
    > > status. In other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to
    > > destroy a higher form. That is evil." Note 140-Lila's child
    >
    > Steve:
    > I didn't mean to eliminate participation in intellectual patterns from the
    > individual or the self. i agree that these are part of the forest of
    > static patterns that comprise the self. That's fine with me if you'd like
    > to add participation in intellectual patterns to your definition of
    > humanity. I don't think it is necessary, however.

    Humanity without intellect is a bunch of monkeys. The ability to collect
    and manipulate symbols that stand for patterns of experience (Pirsig's
    definition of intellect) distinguishs man from ape, plus a few genes.

    > In fact, your ad hominen quote supports my case. When someone attacks
    > one's social self we consider the attack "personal." On the other hand,
    > when someone attacks one's ideas (intellectual self)we do not see it as a
    > personal attack. So the "person" that it is being attacked is the the
    > personality I was talking about as a social pattern of value.
     
    I see your point. It bothers me, however, that you categorize persons as
    mere social patterns, the realm where the Giant rules. We know what the
    Giant does to persons; he has them for lunch. Better to think of persons
    as individuals possessing intellect that can improve life by responding to
    DQ. That way persons are less likely to end up as fodder for the Giant's
    ugly ambitions. It was the guarantee of individual rights as protection
    against the appetite of the Giant that made the USA unique and helped draw
    powerful intellects from all over the world to its shores, yearning to be
    free.

    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 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 12:57:04 BST