From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 13:06:00 BST
Hi David
David said:
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 species, 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...
Paul:
This we call intellect. What is this "they" that emerges *in addition
to* intellectual patterns?
"This fictitious "man" has many synonyms: "mankind," "people," "the
public," and even pronouns such as "I," "he," and "they." Our language
is so organised around them and they are so convenient to use it is
impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like
"substance" they can be used as long as it is remembered that they're
terms for collections of patterns and not some independent primary
reality of their own." [LILA Ch.12]
David said:
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.
Paul:
Anything Dynamic comes from Dynamic Quality, not from a static level.
David said:
The fact that individually generated intellectual patterns can later be
shared with other fully emerged individuals...
Paul:
Fully emerged individuals? To me, this is an ideal that you and Platt
seem to start with that you are then fudging into the MOQ. It sounds
more like Maslow or Rand than Pirsig.
David said:
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.
Paul:
I'd go further than that and say that, upon analysis, the whole idea of
"individual" is just a useful expression for sets of patterns occurring
together over time and the patterns we choose to apply it to are fairly
arbitrary and debatable rather than essential or intrinsic. When you say
individual intellectual patterns, where do you draw the line? Is it the
"internal" monologue occurring whilst you go about your daily business?
Do you not repeat other things you have heard or read, in this
monologue? What makes an idea *your own*? When you invent one? Where did
it come from? Does this idea not rest on a whole set of ideas that
cannot be called your own? Ideas aren't floating around in a void with
no connection to each other. I would say they connect horizontally and
vertically, all the way down, all the way back.
Finally, I would also say that it is easier to define boundaries of an
individual at the biological level than at the intellectual.
Fingerprints and DNA are used to uniquely identify individuals, not
ideas.
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 : Fri Jul 30 2004 - 13:14:22 BST