Re: MD The Individual Level

Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 21:31:13 BST

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

    PART. 2.

    > Sam's essay continues:
    > Such an individual has freedom of choice and is thereby open to
    > dynamic innovation;
    > Mark 14-4-04: This is merely saying autonomous individuals behave
    > autonomously again. This is useless. However, the MoQ explains, for we
    > understand that autonomous behaviour results from Intellectual patterns of
    > value challenging social patterns of value. The Dynamic innovation
    > indicated above may be attributed to particular individuals; it may be
    > appropriate to say that, 'so and so' initiated Dynamic behaviour, but this
    > is very sloppy. The Dynamic behaviour is generated by Intellectual patterns
    > of value.

    Again, you've told us what the MOQ says without any references to the

    Mark 15-4-04: Here i am saying that Sam is being tautological. Platt, you are
    asking me to continually provide you with what is clearly written in Lila?
    Re. An individual is composed of four levels of static value in an evolutionary
    relationship with DQ.
    The hidden question is really whether the intellectual level existed at the
    time Sam argues for the importance of autonomous behaviour, and whether this is
    significant? You already agree the intellectual level existed at this time
    (manipulation of symbols) because you have been through all that with Paul
    Turner, dmb and Bo before he left the forum?
    The question of whether intellectual patterns created the individual depends
    on whether you feel an individual can exist as a celebrity social entity? I
    would say that the celebrity is differentiated on socially patterned values, and
    being differentiated, he/she IS an individual.

    > Sam's essay continues, one might say, 'Remorseless in it's inherent
    > ignorance of the MoQ': such an individual is able to develop that freedom
    > through the development and application of the virtues:
    > Mark 14-4-04: Apologies Platt. Here, Sam introduces Aristotelian ethics.
    > The Virtues are what allow a Man to become Eudaimon. I can only suggest
    > that you read the "Nicomachian ethics" (very often just called, 'the
    > ethics') which will bore you stupid. But you will like it, because it was
    > the basis for the Western conception of what a Good or Wise man should be
    > for two thousand years. The British Aristocracy go in for it 100% because
    > Aristotle was writing about Aristocrats - the best people in his culture.
    > These ideas were heavily adopted by the Church, most noticeably St. Thomas
    > Aquinas. If 'the ethics' is too heavy for you, i recommend O.J. Urmson's
    > commentary, 'Aristotle's ethics' which is very good indeed. I should add
    > that these ideas, while very influential even today, are a bit old hat.
    > Sam's heavy use of them is a retrograde step in MoQ terms.

    Well, I kinda agree with Aristotle's virtues, or at least the Victorian
    values Pirsig mentions including thrift, optimism, hard work, self-
    discipline, belief in the future and codes of craftsmanship. I don't think
    such virtues are 'old hat' or set the MOQ back in any way.

    Mark 15-4-04: I like Aristotle myself Platt. I am not fond of the Victorians
    I don't agree with Sam when he suggests the rise of the intellectual level is
    the rise of the individual. The social celebrity is by its nature an
    individual differentiated by Organic and Social excellence. The prominence of
    intellectual excellence does not create an individual, it changes the character of
    what an individual is to be differentiated.

    Mark, may I suggest you reread the part in Lila about the Zuni and the
    brujo who, as an sole individual, changed for the better the social
    pattern of the Zuni tribe.

    Mark 15-4-04: Platt, we are beginning to go around in circles i fear.
    When you say, 'sole individual' you are using a tautology. The question is,
    what is an individual in MoQ terms? That answer is found in Lila.
    Sam's question is really whether the rise of the intellect coincided with the
    rise of the individual. But you agree the intellectual level, as the
    manipulation of symbols preceded the Ancient Greek culture.
    No, the prominence of the intellectual level changed the character of the
    individual, it did not create the individual, for to be a celebrity is to be
    differentiated by Organic and Social values. The prominence of intellectual
    differentiation is a change in character of what it is to be an individual, not the
    creation of individuals.

    And the brujo was no great intellect, for sure.

    Mark 15-4-04: The brujo was open to Dynamic change. That is the key. In fact,
    the section in Lila where the brujo is discussed is that very section in
    which Pirsig retells how he came to discover the best metaphysical division of
    Quality: the DQ/SQ relationship.

    IMO, only a level could exert that much power and dominance to alter a
    lower level pattern. That's another one reason, besides Sam's argument,
    why we should change the Intellectual Level to the Individual Level.


    Mark 15-4-04: I disagree with your assessment of the situation.
    The brujo's influence was Dynamic. That individuals may be Dynamic, is so,
    regardless of whether they are intellectually, socially or organically Dynamic,
    or all three at once: Individuals ARE composed of four levels of static
    patterns in an evolutionary relationship with DQ.
    So, the example of the brujo shows SQ-SQ tension open to DQ in action Platt.
    If the brujo was influential, and we both agree he certainly was, his
    influence was Dynamic.
    What is the source of an individual's Dynamism? It is DQ i suppose?
    How does DQ influence an individual?
    Well, what is an individual in MoQ terms? Four levels in a relationship with

    Event stream (DQ) (SODV) --------> Coherence <-------- DQ as goal of
    Evolution (Lila)

    Coherence = 1, 2, 3, and 4th levels of static patterns.
    From this, we can see that depending on which level of evolution is dominant,
    and depending on the colour of the combination of influences involved, the
    character of coherence describes the arc of potential Human being.
    All Humans are individuals, but it is in what way, in what character, by what
    coherence, by what dominating patterns of values do they express themselves
    AS individual?
    This may change depending on the time of day, month, year, situation: In the
    school the coherence may be intellectual; at the gym it may be social, in the
    bedroom biological? On the campaign trail it may be a shifting combination of
    all these depending on the man/woman, or depending on whether you are Bill
    (Just a little satire to lighten the tone Platt, no offence intended.)
    In the peace of the reservation, or Church, or mountain, or the quietude of
    'now' while fixing a motorcycle, one may become exceptionally coherent and open
    to a higher stable relationship with DQ?
    I need to learn to be like that when i read Sam's lack of understanding. I
    shall be working on that from now on Platt.

    All the best,

    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 : Fri Apr 16 2004 - 00:08:37 BST