From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 21:15:25 BST
Hi Mark, Sam:
I can't imagine a normal individual human being 'without intellectual
participation.' No celebrity required . . . just someone who thinks and
exercises her right to express herself freely.
Mark 16-4-04: Hello Platt, I become suspicious when people feel they need to
use the word, 'normal.' There is no argument in what you say here, only an
expression of your opinion. When i express my opinion, you start asking for data?
Please provide me with data as to what 'normal' is?
Platt:
My view is that the levels are primarily defined by their ability to
dominant lower levels and that the Individual Level has emerged because it
has the capability to dominate the social level.
Mark 16-4-04: There is no 'Individual' level in the MoQ. I have already told
you that. If you want any more reading apart from Lila and SODV then see
Anthony McWatt's' text book - there is a whole section on the MoQ's view of the
individual.
Platt:
To quote Pirsig,
"Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an extension
of that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level can often be
seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, controlling it
where possible for its own purposes." (Lila, 12)
Mark 16-4-04: This quote supports the assertion that a level tries to
dominate its lower one. But as there is no 'Individual' level in the MoQ, this quote
is meaningless. What the quote does support, as you have been told at least
half a dozen times now, is Intellectual patterns try to dominate social
patterns. This fits perfectly with the quote you provide.
Platt:
If Sam says Christianity is separate from the MOQ I think he's wrong.
Religions are social patterns. But, even if Sam is wrong about that it
doesn't mean he's wrong about everything in his interpretation of the MOQ.
Mark 16-4-04: I agree, but to make such a huge mistake indicates just how far
Sam is from having anything like an adequate understanding of the MoQ.
Before accusations of ad hominem attacks begin to resound about the place,
please let us remind ourselves that Metaphysics deals with the nature of primary
reality.
The issue of the 'Individual' level is less serious, but it is wrong non the
less.
Platt:
As indicated above, my view is that the Individual Level emerged when
individuals, responding to DQ, used their intellectual powers to dominate
the social level, insisting on freedom from the social level to fully
utilize their intellects to make value choices.
Mark 16-4-04: This simply does not work. I cannot for the life of me
understand why you cannot see that Individuals ARE four levels responding to DQ. To
say four levels use one level to dominate is very confusing and incoherent.
I've gone into this a number of times with you now but the penny isn't
dropping?
Platt:
Remember: freedom is DQ's
highest value. The social level isn't pleased by individuals going their
own way, and so the battle between the levels still rages, currently
reflected in the civilized world's war against terrorism.
Platt
Mark 16-4-04: Should say: The social level isn't pleased by intellectual
patterns going their own way.
Democracy is an Intellectual pattern of value, and in democracies, the
individual can be outvoted. Being outvoted is allowing oneself to be dominated by,
'the crowd' isn't it Platt?
I feel you would gain far more insight into the situation you wish to analyse
if you began utilising the MoQ to do it with?
All the best,
Mark.
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 Apr 16 2004 - 21:17:02 BST