From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 18:02:29 BST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 1:06 PM
Subject: RE: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
> 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?
DM: As I said: 'this we call the individual' -a collection
of patterns that can come under intellectual organisation
only in the context of the collection we call an individual
which is intself possible only in the context of social patterns, etc....
>
> "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.
DM: On social level the SQ created by DQ has a social nature
on the intellectual level the SQ created by DQ has an intellectual
nature and emrges from the individual rather than from collective
activity/creativity.
>
> 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.
Rubbish, this is you claiming your thinking is more
advanced than mine -you may be wrong you know!
These are not the people I read, try Heidegger, Arthur Gibson, Roy Bhaskar,
Charles Taylor, AM Young, Roger Smith, RM Young, Whitehead, Bergson,
Baitaille, Schelling, Prigogine bacause I did anti-essentialism a long
time before I came across Pirsig in fact.
'Individual' is a perfectly good name for a collection of SQ patterns
that enable the level of intellectual SQ patterns to emerge, you used
the correct Pirsig quote yourself. I think you think I am saying
something I am not.
>
> 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.
Exactly what I am saying, but the collection of patterns that
enable the emergence of the patterns we call an individual are
essential to their being any intellectual level at all, that is my point.
>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?
Clearly a mix of static patterns relating to all the levels. But you only
get intellectual off the back of these internal monologue capacities.
> 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?
Yes, good point, I agree that all patterns are not individual,
-once they have become patterns-
only when one is privileged to be the clearing in which some
DQ emerges is one truly individual, I think Nietzsche would
agree with that, I see this as being what we mean by the uniqueness
of individuality. (Well also perhaps a unique set of patterns where
none of them alone are unique in themselves and belonging only to one
individual).
And of course at bottom DQ is a One and therefore we are all One in our
individuality.
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.
Yes, except for the new idea which both takes what is given
already and yet adds something utterly new and out of Nothing.
>
> 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.
>
I think this is your inadequate understanding of what I mean by the
individual.
For me the concept of the static patterns we call an individual emerges only
with romantic western culture. A unique biological pattern is just
a variation with the species and possess not individuality. Make any better
sense?
> 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 - 18:56:11 BST