From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 16:35:31 BST
Hi All
we have chatted about what a human being is:
4 levels plus DQ some say, but what in MOQ terms is a human individual,
like the specific Steve Peterson? as Platt says.
There are things about the individual that are unique as opposed to
patterned, there was only one SP born at a certain place and time.
Any thoughts?
Dvaid M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: MD The Individual Level
> Hi Steve Peterson,
>
> Steve said:
> > > > I think that the misunderstanding that suggests eudamonia level for
Sam
> > > > and individual level for Platt is conceiving of the levels as types
of
> > > > people rather than types of patterns of value.
> >
> > Platt said:
> > > For myself, besides the arguments Sam presents, it's a question of
> > > dominance. Only individuals create intellectual patterns. Most of us
> > > agree that those patterns existed and still exist at the social level.
> >
> > Not sure I understand you. Are you saying that individuals existed and
> > still exist at the social level?
>
> Yes. Keep in mind when I say 'individuals' I'm referring to human beings.
>
> >If so, I think there is an LC quote
> > supporting that that says that people are social patterns, though I
think
> > elsewhere he also describes people as forests of static patterns of all
> > types which makes mores sense to me.
> >
> > I can also agree that it is worth talking about dominance, but using the
> > language of someone "being on" a particular level confuses the matter
when
> > what you mean by it is to be dominated by a particular level.
>
> A Muslim fundamentalist is dominated by social patterns and is thus on the
> social level. If she engages in terrorism, she drops down to the
> biological level. I think being 'dominated by' and 'being on' amounts to
> the same thing.
>
> . When you say
> > that someone is on the intellectual level, it sounds like you are saying
> > that the person literally *is* an intellectual pattern rather than
saying
> > she is dominated by intellectual patterns.
>
> If that what it sounds like, I haven't been clear. I hope what I wrote
> above helps to clarify.
>
> > I can see that it would make
> > more sense to say that the person literally *is* an individual, but the
> > shift in names from intellectual to individual only seems necessary
bcause
> > you are conflating "being on" a level with being dominated by a type of
> > pattern of value. As I understand the MOQ, the only things that are
> > literally on the intellectual level are thoughts.
>
> I don't see how you can disembody thoughts. Thoughts emanate from minds of
> individuals.
>
> > Perhaps we can agree that an autonomous individual is one who is
dominated
> > by intellectual patterns?
>
> Rather perhaps we can agree that the individual level is dominated, by
> individuals who are dominated by intellectual patterns and thus often in
> conflict with individuals dominated by social patterns. Ex: scientists vs.
> voodoo priests.
>
> > >But when the
> > > individuals who created those patterns saw that the social level was a
> > > hindrance to their free expression, they gathered sufficient power to
> > > create a new level that freed them from the stifling confines of
social
> > > level patterns, you know, freedom of religion, of speech, trial by
jury,
> > > etc.
> >
> > I would say that people holding those ideas gained sufficient control of
> > social institutions to institutionalize those freedoms as these
particular
> > ideas became widely perceived to be good by way of belief. There is no
> > static level above that of ideas (individual level) that contains
patterns
> > of valuation of ideas. The set of valuations of ideas is the
intellectual
> > level itself. no new level is required to free intellectual patterns. It
is
> > a matter of people creating social structure that encourage the
evolution
> > of intellectual patterns.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow you.
>
> > > > Eudamonia and individual describe people, whereas Pirsig's
> > > > intellectual
> > > > level is a collection of patterns of value of a particluar type.
> > >
> > > I don't see how you can divorce people from intellectual patterns.
> > >
> >
> > This question disolves when you stop thinking in terms of subjects and
> > objects (thinkers and thoughts) in favor of patterns of value.
>
> Precisely the problem. When you stop thinking of people and begin
> labelling them in abstract terms, the mischief begins. I'm sure you would
> rather be thought of as Steve Peterson, a unique and valuable individual,
> rather than an cipher made up of four value levels like every other person
> on earth. Once you begin to think of people in the abstract like that, you
> have no qualms in coercing them to conform to some abstract plan 'for
> their own good.'.
>
> > A person is not a fourth level entity. A person is a pattern of
patterns
> > that does have a fourth level component since we think of one's thought
> > patterns as part of his identity. We think of his social and biological
> > patterns as part of his identity as well. (We don't bother thinking
about
> > one another's inorganic patterns since we all play by the same rules
> > there.)
>
> This description of me is what I find scary, for the reasons outlined
> above.
>
> > > >When you
> > > > think of the levels as types of patterns where intellectual patterns
> > > > are simply patterns of thinking, then there is no need to do any
> > > > renaming.
> > >
> > > I don't see how you can divorce individuals from patterns of thinking.
> >
> > Consider the pattern of deductive logic. Must you think about some
> > individual thinking deductively to think about deductive logic, or can
you
> > simply think about deductive logic? The fact that there would be no
> > deductive logic without biological brains to manipulate socially
> > constructed symbols standing for patterns of experience goes without
> > saying.
>
> Beware when someone says, "It goes without saying" which assumes a premise
> without evidence. Remember, it took an individual, Aristotle, to invent
> logic, just as it took an individual, Pirsig, to invent the MOQ.
>
> >You may be conflating Pirsig's levels with Wilber's holons. The
> > intellectual level does not contain the social level which does not
contain
> > the biological level, etc. Each is a specific type of pattern whose
> > existence depends on the level below but is not contained by the level
> > below and does not contain the level below. If that's what you mean by
> > "divorced" then, yes, I think the levels are divorced.
>
> The individual level contains the social level in so far as it uses the
> language of the social level. Wilber's holons are another issue
> altogether.
>
> > > > I hope that the problems that
> > > > each of you found with the term intellectual will lead you to
> > > > reconsider how you have been thinking about what Pirsig means by
level.
> > > > As Ayn Rand would tell you, when you encounter a contradiction,
check
> > > > your assumptions.
> > > > There are no contradictions.
> > >
> > > I see no contradictions in renaming the Intellectual Level the
Individual
> > > Level. It's simply a proposal for a change for the better in the MOQ,
> > > something Pirsig encouraged.
> > >
> >
> > The contradiction I'm talking about is whatever drove you to feel the
need
> > to fix Pirsig's work. I'm suggesting that you should consider that the
> > problem may be the way you are thinking about the levels rather than an
> > error that RMP made in naming them. I suspect he knew what he meant by
> > intellectual. (He was even anoyed at the thought of someone else not
> > knowing what he meant because he thought it was so obvious.) If he
> > actually meant individual level, I'm sure he would have called it that.
>
> This is the argument from authority--the master always knows best. Pirsig
> knew what he meant by intellectual and figured it was so obvious that
> everybody did. But it looks to me like he had a 'static filter' here that
> blinded him to the fact that not everyone understood what he meant by
> intellectual. He felt compelled to further explain it in the LC, and even
> now there are some who disagree that explanation.
>
> Regards,
> 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
>
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 Apr 18 2004 - 16:41:46 BST