Re: MD The Individual Level

Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 21:32:20 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD The Individual Level"

    PART. 1.

    Hi Mark,

    I'm glad to see you apologize to Sam for your 'mocking behavior' because
    it allows me to respond to this post you addressed to me that I would have
    otherwise ignored. You and I have agreed many times that beauty
    (coherence, unity, harmony, etc.) goes hand in hand with Quality. To see
    this mutual understanding undermined by incoherent, deformed and ugly
    personal attacks on a fellow poster was upsetting to me because it
    poisoned the pursuit of truth and excellence that the exchanges of ideas
    on this site aim for. A site devoted to a discussion of Quality ought to
    reflect its subject in the manner of the discussion. We can have vigorous
    debate without sinking to the level of gratuitous ad hominem remarks.

    Mark 15-4-04: Hello Platt, i may only hope Sam feel the same way as yourself?

    Platt (previously)
    > Although I didn't understand most of the exchange between Sam and Mark, it
    > prompted me to take another look at Sam's essay entitled 'The Eudaimonic
    > MOQ' in the Forum.
    > There I discovered (having forgotten it) Sam's
    > recasting of the Intellectual Level based on the distinction between the
    > individual and society. He wrote:
    > "To my way of thinking, the essence of the fourth level is the existence of
    > an autonomous individual: autonomous because the individual is (for the
    > first time) capable of establishing their own laws by which to act (auto
    > nomos).

    > Mark 14-4-04:
    > Hello Platt, Sorry to butt in uninvited, but i think i can
    > clear this up for you? Sam's view does not coincide with Robert Pirsig's
    > view. And here is why:
    > Sam writes, "the essence of the fourth level is the existence of an
    > autonomous individual."
    > First, let us examine what an individual is in the MoQ.
    > An individual Human being is composed of four evolutionary related levels
    > of static value: 1. The Inorganic. 2. The Organic. 3. The Social. 4. The
    > Intellectual. The MoQ, as outlined in Lila tells us quite specifically that
    > each new level has virtually nothing to do with the lower level. Each new
    > level is a pattern of behaviour all of it's own.

    Yes, but at the same time, each level is completely dependent upon the
    lower level for its health and survival. That's where the 'coherence'
    comes in. :-)

    Mark 15-4-04: Agreed. However, let us imagine a juggler juggling four balls
    numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4? Let us view this activity as a unitary whole? We may
    say that four ball juggling is in a coherent state.
    The fourth ball needs the others to maintain its place in the coherent state,
    but the fourth ball is NOT the other three balls? It is the character of four
    ball coherence which depends on the participation of ball number four
    accompanying the other three.
    Three ball coherence is a different character but it is still coherent? And
    that is basically my argument about the individual; individuality is coherence,
    but the character of that coherence changes with intellectual participation.
    Without intellectual participation, individuality is still possible, but of
    the celebrity social character.

    > Therefore, the essence of
    > the fourth level is not [1+2+3] = 4th level. Again, the essence of the
    > third level is not [1+2] = 3rd level. And similarly, the essence of the
    > second level is not [1+?] = 2nd level.

    Since each level depends on those below it for its existence, I would say
    that the essence of the fourth level is indeed 1+2+3+4 comprising an

    Mark 15-4-04: I disagree Platt.
    I suggest the essence of an individual may be said to be it's coherence as a
    stable relationship between static [level 1, 2, 3 and 4] patterns and DQ.
    You are suggesting the Individual is the fourth level.
    I feel your view is incoherent with the MoQ as presented in Lila, SODV and
    other sources.

    > Sam is telling us that Autonomous individuals behave autonomously. This is
    > useless. The MoQ tells us that autonomous behaviour is due to intellectual
    > patterns of a particular individual challenging the social patterns of the
    > same individual. (This will become more clear as we take a better look at
    > Sam's essay extracts which you provide for us below.) Sam's confusion is
    > due to his fundamental misunderstanding of the MoQ. I would go further, and
    > suggest that Sam understands the MoQ, but cannot accept it as it leads to
    > blasphemous conclusions, and must therefore be changed, hence, the so
    > called, "Eudaimonic MOQ." There is no individual level.

    Just to claim someone misunderstands the MOQ (while you do) is not a
    convincing argument. Nor is it convincing to say "The MOQ tells us that
    autonomous behavior is due to . . ." without showing us where Pirsig says
    that or something like that.

    Mark 15-4-04: In my opinion, Sam misunderstands the MoQ Platt. That is just
    my opinion and i did not intend it to be a rock solid argument.
    But Sam tells us that Christianity is separate from the MoQ in his view? Now,
    if the MoQ is a description of everything in terms of value, then
    Christianity, being something, must be included in the MoQ? Right? So, Sam has already
    shown his understanding of the MoQ to be wobbly?
    Where does it say that the MoQ is a description of everything? Well, in Lila,
    as i am sure you remember, the four levels compose our encyclopaedia? Only DQ
    is left out.
    Now on to autonomous behaviour.
    Sam suggests that autonomous behaviour is very important in Human history. I
    agree with him. Sam also suggests that autonomous behaviour of the individual
    challenges social values.
    This is where is say, "hang on Sam, isn't an individual composed of four
    levels of patterns evolving in a relationship with DQ?" The answer is, yes. This
    is stated in Lila.
    Sam makes a very simple mistake - he misunderstands what an individual is in
    MoQ terms. The evidence for this is in Lila.
    If Sam where to suggest that Intellectual patterns did not exist at the time
    he feels autonomous behaviour became important, the he would be standing on
    more solid ground? So, was this the case?
    Now his arguing agrees with me! Autonomous behaviour became important (in a
    certain way - as that of an individual with intellectual capacity) with the
    development of intellectual patterns! Why? Not because the individual IS a new
    level. The individual already existed as a celebrity. No, the individual becomes
    important in a new way. The individual is now exhibiting the results of
    tension between social and intellectual patterns which have changed the character
    of what it is to be a Human individual.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 15 2004 - 23:51:11 BST