[MD] Individual v Collective

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Ian: Squonk,

Now that is interesting ... I continually talk of  the
socio-intellectual level ... ie I have great difficulty making  any
clear distinction between what look like two aspects of culture to  me
- social and intellectual ...
 
Mark: Hello Ian, Let's change the subject then and have a chat if you  wish?
You say, 'I have great difficulty making any
clear distinction between  what look like two aspects of culture... ...the
socio-intellectual  level.'
An analogy may help?
Imagine a bird in a forest - it hears a call an imitates it. That is the  
social level.
The bird could imitate morse code, which is an intellectual  pattern. So, 
intellectual patterns may be learned socially, but the morse  code pattern itself 
is an intellectual pattern. Birds are not going to start  speaking English to 
each other using morse code, and they are certainly not  going to use such 
speech to discuss science or philosophy.
 
Ian: I'm forming the view that the missing axis is individual vs  collective
... but it's not a well formed view yet. Either way, I see a  great
deal of cutural (social) conditioning of what we (individually  or
collectively) see as "intellectual".
 
Mark: There is a way out of this but it's going to hurt: The way out is to  
strike out 'individual' altogether, and view what had been previously  
conceptualised as the individual as a collective of various sq patterns  responding to 
DQ.
The bottom line is Atomic conceptions v field conceptions.
Fields may be constructed from discrete atomic simples, and  fields may 
coalesce into atomic-like densities depending on the conception.  So, a more 
fundamental conceptual shift is in order which generates both fields  and atomic 
simples.
What may sort this out is the introduction of DQ itself: I have been  working 
toward an ontology of excellence which says there are nodes of coherent  sq 
relationships within the DQ field. These sq ontological events look like  
objects but they are not, and the term event is used to remind us that what look  
like discrete objects are Dynamic goodnesses/badnesses - excellences.
Where does this leave the socio-intellectual level?
I don't know, but i think it can be teaselled out if we drop the individual  
and think in terms of fields. To remind you again, the discrete is a  
particularly stable field anyway, so the individual is illusory and there really  
isn't anything to worry about once you make the conceptual leap away from your  
social conditioning.

I appear to have changed the subject -  sorry.
Ian
 
Mark: I'm glad you did and look forward to your reply.
Love,
Mark