From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jul 28 2004 - 13:44:52 BST
Hi Paul,
> 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?
To focus on intellect without acknowledging the individual is like putting
the cart before the horse, or more appropriately, to eliminate the vital
role of the horse altogether.
> 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.)
While you emphasize the transcendent nature of of successful intellectual
patterns, I emphasize the originator or creator of such patterns.
> 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.
Newton originated the intellectual pattern of gravity. That pattern was
then confirmed by other individuals, one individual at a time. The process
is like Pirsig's description of cultural changes. "A tribe can change its
values only person by person and someone has to be first."
(Lila, 9)
> 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.)
Your "life of their own" remark suggests Richard Dawkin's "memes."
> 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.
Thank you, Paul. I enjoyed it.
Best,
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 Jul 28 2004 - 13:42:27 BST