From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 28 2004 - 10:10:41 BST
Hi Platt
Platt said:
I don't believe I have ever divorced the individual from the moral
levels.
Paul:
You say that, but then it makes no sense to agree that, on the one hand,
individuals are composed of static patterns from *all levels* but, on
the other, an individual is the defining characteristic of *the fourth
level*. That is what I do not understand. I think you are trying to have
it both ways.
Platt said:
What puts the individual at the top level is his role as the source of
intellect, of ideas, without which the MOQ doesn't work or even exist at
all. (I don't think ZMM and Lila were written by a committee.)
Paul:
Well, if an individual is composed of patterns from all levels, and the
most evolved and therefore superior part of an individual is that they
are a collection of ideas, then "intellectual level" is a much clearer
and precise definition of the top level than "individual level," is it
not?
The other thing to consider is a point I made before - that intellectual
patterns, the most successful ones, are not individual at all, they are
the patterns that seem to "transcend" individual opinion, as Socrates
tried to argue. (Of course, he thought this was because truth was some
kind of revelation from a divine intelligence that we may recollect.
However, in MOQ terms, with all of the caveats about Absolute Truth, the
general truths of intellectual quality can be said to "transcend" the
particular interests of social quality.)
And from a practical perspective, imagine trying to plot a trajectory to
Mars with a bunch of people who all had their own little theory of
physics - "Gravity? My system doesn't need gravity! It's the 17th
dimension you have to account for...." I know there are many competing
theories, and this is part of evolution, but one or two usually succeed
for long periods - not one per person.
Finally, whilst intellectual patterns can be said to latch via socially
learned language in an individual biological brain, I suggest that they
don't really *belong* to any one individual. They have a life of their
own, and to try to stop that is immoral. (One could get into a good
discussion about the morality of "intellectual property" here e.g.
Microsoft compared with Linux, but I'll avoid that right now to keep to
the topic.)
In a separate post Paul wrote:
"I really think the MOQ defends the individual in terms of the ability
to respond to DQ which can "improve" patterns at "any level," and it is
within the domain of the static levels to make sure that the whole
structure is not undermined by the Dynamic activity."
Platt said:
I agree! Without the individual pattern -- the responder to DQ and the
source of intellect -- there's no evolutionary improvement. Without the
static patterns, there's chaos.
Paul:
Well, I would simplify that to "Without DQ there's no evolutionary
improvement. Without the static patterns, there's chaos." The individual
is simply the patterns being created and changed by DQ.
I think we understand each other's positions a little better anyway.
Thanks for the discussion, Platt.
Cheers
Paul
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 Jul 28 2004 - 10:10:45 BST