From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 10:42:14 BST
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
DM: Well the first bit is wrong, on one level a human being
is a pile of inorganic patterns, on the next these are organised
into a living body of a particular speciees, on the next they are just a cog
in a social organism, on the top level they emerge as something that
has independence from their society, that can question and
have dynamic effects on it, this we call the individual, some
human bodies never get beyond the social cog where anything
dynamic about them comes from the society and does not have
its source in individuality. Only bad use of concepts can stop you seeing
this.
The fact that individually generated intellectual patterns can late
be shared with other fully emerged individuals has nothing to do
with social patterns that have emerged via non-reflective social
patterns and myths. It is via individual dynamic reativity that an
SQ static level emerges that goes beyond the dynamic individual,
that is what is meant by a level, it has spread out. Get your division
right between what is static and what is dynamic and you can see
what level emergent beings appear on, the individual and the intellectual
are inseperable aspects of the 4th level. If you look at examples
that you think are individual that are not 4th level then you are really
looking at examples that are not individual when properly analysed.
If something is a pattern without intellectual content it is just species
or social stuff I think.
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:10 AM
Subject: RE: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
> 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
>
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 Jul 30 2004 - 10:59:48 BST