From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 22:38:41 BST
Hi Ian
True, and doesn't this uniqueness and evolution
mean that the individual has to find unique ways of
responding to the patterns and experience she encounters.
So that being human is necessarily more in touch with DQ and freedom than
say being an animal, where they rely more on set instinct
to respond to their experience and the patterns they encounter.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: MD The Individual Level
> True, but that SP goes through his own "evolution" from that point
> throughout his whole (mortal) life.
>
> OK so his genetic biology is fixed from conception, but just about
> everything else physical, chemical, social, cultural, intellectual is in
an
> ongoing two-way state of flux, internally, as well as externally
influencing
> those with whom he communicates.
>
> His genetic identity was the only thing fixed by his conception (and
shared
> with any co-genetic siblings). All other aspects of his "identity" are
> undefined / changing / evolving.
>
> Sorry to dive in with a point, not sure how that relates to the thread you
> were already following.
> Ian Glendinning
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: MD The Individual Level
>
>
> > Hi All
> >
> > we have chatted about what a human being is:
> > 4 levels plus DQ some say, but what in MOQ terms is a human individual,
> > like the specific Steve Peterson? as Platt says.
> > There are things about the individual that are unique as opposed to
> > patterned, there was only one SP born at a certain place and time.
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Dvaid M
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 2:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: MD The Individual Level
> >
> >
> > > Hi Steve Peterson,
> > >
> > > Steve said:
> > > > > > I think that the misunderstanding that suggests eudamonia level
> for
> > Sam
> > > > > > and individual level for Platt is conceiving of the levels as
> types
> > of
> > > > > > people rather than types of patterns of value.
> > > >
> > > > Platt said:
> > > > > For myself, besides the arguments Sam presents, it's a question of
> > > > > dominance. Only individuals create intellectual patterns. Most of
us
> > > > > agree that those patterns existed and still exist at the social
> level.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure I understand you. Are you saying that individuals existed
> and
> > > > still exist at the social level?
> > >
> > > Yes. Keep in mind when I say 'individuals' I'm referring to human
> beings.
> > >
> > > >If so, I think there is an LC quote
> > > > supporting that that says that people are social patterns, though I
> > think
> > > > elsewhere he also describes people as forests of static patterns of
> all
> > > > types which makes mores sense to me.
> > > >
> > > > I can also agree that it is worth talking about dominance, but using
> the
> > > > language of someone "being on" a particular level confuses the
matter
> > when
> > > > what you mean by it is to be dominated by a particular level.
> > >
> > > A Muslim fundamentalist is dominated by social patterns and is thus on
> the
> > > social level. If she engages in terrorism, she drops down to the
> > > biological level. I think being 'dominated by' and 'being on' amounts
to
> > > the same thing.
> > >
> > > . When you say
> > > > that someone is on the intellectual level, it sounds like you are
> saying
> > > > that the person literally *is* an intellectual pattern rather than
> > saying
> > > > she is dominated by intellectual patterns.
> > >
> > > If that what it sounds like, I haven't been clear. I hope what I
wrote
> > > above helps to clarify.
> > >
> > > > I can see that it would make
> > > > more sense to say that the person literally *is* an individual, but
> the
> > > > shift in names from intellectual to individual only seems necessary
> > bcause
> > > > you are conflating "being on" a level with being dominated by a type
> of
> > > > pattern of value. As I understand the MOQ, the only things that are
> > > > literally on the intellectual level are thoughts.
> > >
> > > I don't see how you can disembody thoughts. Thoughts emanate from
minds
> of
> > > individuals.
> > >
> > > > Perhaps we can agree that an autonomous individual is one who is
> > dominated
> > > > by intellectual patterns?
> > >
> > > Rather perhaps we can agree that the individual level is dominated, by
> > > individuals who are dominated by intellectual patterns and thus often
in
> > > conflict with individuals dominated by social patterns. Ex: scientists
> vs.
> > > voodoo priests.
> > >
> > > > >But when the
> > > > > individuals who created those patterns saw that the social level
was
> a
> > > > > hindrance to their free expression, they gathered sufficient power
> to
> > > > > create a new level that freed them from the stifling confines of
> > social
> > > > > level patterns, you know, freedom of religion, of speech, trial by
> > jury,
> > > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > I would say that people holding those ideas gained sufficient
control
> of
> > > > social institutions to institutionalize those freedoms as these
> > particular
> > > > ideas became widely perceived to be good by way of belief. There is
no
> > > > static level above that of ideas (individual level) that contains
> > patterns
> > > > of valuation of ideas. The set of valuations of ideas is the
> > intellectual
> > > > level itself. no new level is required to free intellectual
patterns.
> It
> > is
> > > > a matter of people creating social structure that encourage the
> > evolution
> > > > of intellectual patterns.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't follow you.
> > >
> > > > > > Eudamonia and individual describe people, whereas Pirsig's
> > > > > > intellectual
> > > > > > level is a collection of patterns of value of a particluar type.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how you can divorce people from intellectual patterns.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This question disolves when you stop thinking in terms of subjects
and
> > > > objects (thinkers and thoughts) in favor of patterns of value.
> > >
> > > Precisely the problem. When you stop thinking of people and begin
> > > labelling them in abstract terms, the mischief begins. I'm sure you
> would
> > > rather be thought of as Steve Peterson, a unique and valuable
> individual,
> > > rather than an cipher made up of four value levels like every other
> person
> > > on earth. Once you begin to think of people in the abstract like that,
> you
> > > have no qualms in coercing them to conform to some abstract plan 'for
> > > their own good.'.
> > >
> > > > A person is not a fourth level entity. A person is a pattern of
> > patterns
> > > > that does have a fourth level component since we think of one's
> thought
> > > > patterns as part of his identity. We think of his social and
> biological
> > > > patterns as part of his identity as well. (We don't bother thinking
> > about
> > > > one another's inorganic patterns since we all play by the same rules
> > > > there.)
> > >
> > > This description of me is what I find scary, for the reasons outlined
> > > above.
> > >
> > > > > >When you
> > > > > > think of the levels as types of patterns where intellectual
> patterns
> > > > > > are simply patterns of thinking, then there is no need to do any
> > > > > > renaming.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how you can divorce individuals from patterns of
> thinking.
> > > >
> > > > Consider the pattern of deductive logic. Must you think about some
> > > > individual thinking deductively to think about deductive logic, or
can
> > you
> > > > simply think about deductive logic? The fact that there would be no
> > > > deductive logic without biological brains to manipulate socially
> > > > constructed symbols standing for patterns of experience goes without
> > > > saying.
> > >
> > > Beware when someone says, "It goes without saying" which assumes a
> premise
> > > without evidence. Remember, it took an individual, Aristotle, to
invent
> > > logic, just as it took an individual, Pirsig, to invent the MOQ.
> > >
> > > >You may be conflating Pirsig's levels with Wilber's holons. The
> > > > intellectual level does not contain the social level which does not
> > contain
> > > > the biological level, etc. Each is a specific type of pattern whose
> > > > existence depends on the level below but is not contained by the
level
> > > > below and does not contain the level below. If that's what you mean
by
> > > > "divorced" then, yes, I think the levels are divorced.
> > >
> > > The individual level contains the social level in so far as it uses
the
> > > language of the social level. Wilber's holons are another issue
> > > altogether.
> > >
> > > > > > I hope that the problems that
> > > > > > each of you found with the term intellectual will lead you to
> > > > > > reconsider how you have been thinking about what Pirsig means by
> > level.
> > > > > > As Ayn Rand would tell you, when you encounter a contradiction,
> > check
> > > > > > your assumptions.
> > > > > > There are no contradictions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see no contradictions in renaming the Intellectual Level the
> > Individual
> > > > > Level. It's simply a proposal for a change for the better in the
> MOQ,
> > > > > something Pirsig encouraged.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The contradiction I'm talking about is whatever drove you to feel
the
> > need
> > > > to fix Pirsig's work. I'm suggesting that you should consider that
the
> > > > problem may be the way you are thinking about the levels rather than
> an
> > > > error that RMP made in naming them. I suspect he knew what he meant
> by
> > > > intellectual. (He was even anoyed at the thought of someone else
not
> > > > knowing what he meant because he thought it was so obvious.) If he
> > > > actually meant individual level, I'm sure he would have called it
> that.
> > >
> > > This is the argument from authority--the master always knows best.
> Pirsig
> > > knew what he meant by intellectual and figured it was so obvious that
> > > everybody did. But it looks to me like he had a 'static filter' here
> that
> > > blinded him to the fact that not everyone understood what he meant by
> > > intellectual. He felt compelled to further explain it in the LC, and
> even
> > > now there are some who disagree that explanation.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Platt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Apr 18 2004 - 23:12:53 BST