[MD] Food for Thought

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Platt]
> The social moral character of an individual is irrelevant to his intellectual
> status in creating an idea in response to DQ that changes the course of
> history.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Are you suggesting criminals "inhabit the intellectual level"? What Pirsig was
> saying was that ALL humans are sources of ideas, and therefore should not be
> killed unless they pose a direct threat to society. You, on the other hand,
> specifically said "some people inhabit the social level" and "some people
> inhabit the intellectual level". Then you said the "brujo" was an example of
> someone who "inhabits the intellectual level". I can't find anything
> "intellectual" about the brujo. All I see is social craftiness.
> 
> Maybe you are suggesting that determining who "inhabits the intellectual level"
> is done after the fact. Since the brujo ushered in social change, we say he
> "inhabited the intellectual level". Sorry if this makes no sense to me.

Are you suggesting individual criminals can't inhabit the intellectual level?

> [Platt]
> Your "ongoing mistake" is to associate the social level with every level as if
> there were are societies or collectives of electrons and cells.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Not a mistake. Basic MOQ 101. 
> 
> Every level contains "individual patterns". Can you name one that does not? 

Every individual pattern contains a myriad of other individual patterns. Can you 
name one that doesn't? Anyway, the individuals I talk about are humans, not cells.

> >From the collective activity of those individual patterns, the next higher
> level
> emerges? Can you name one level that does not arise from the collective
> activity of individuals on the level below it? 

Where do you get this "collective activity" bit? Not from Lila where the
principles of the MOQ are detailed.

> [Platt]
> Pirsig clearly states that the social and intellectual levels in the MOQ are
> reserved exclusively for humans.. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> And although I disagree with him, it does not change the emergentist nature of
> his MOQ. Social patterns emerge from collective activity of biological
> individuals. Intellectual patterns from the collective activity fo social
> individuals. It is a straightforward understanding of how the MOQ levels came
> to be. 

Show where in Lila this is "emergent nature" described? ZMM doesn't explicate the
the levels of the MOQ. The MOQ wasn't created until after ZMM was published, then
explained in Lila.
 
> [Platt]
> As you know, a person consists of all four levels. But no person inhabits one
> level or another exclusively. But as I said, the vast majority of people are
> dominated by social level values.
> 
> [Arlo]
> So the MOQ levels are personality descriptors? 

They can be. Pirsig cites murderous criminals as biologically motivated. 

> [Platt]
> I believe the law of gravity is attributable to Newton and the history of free
> speech cites John Milton as a catalyst.
> 
> [Arlo]
> The "law of gravity", and free speech, is attributable to the mythos, which
> functions as individuals work collectively. 

All you are saying humans are dependent on society. Duh. But as Pirsig showed
in the story of the Brujo, society doesn't evolve without the catalyst of a 
individual. 

> [Platt]
> As for political agenda, I find nothing in Pirsig to justify collective
> squelching of individual liberty.
> 
> [Arlo]
> And yet you use the MOQ to justify forcing others at the barrel of a gun to wear
> tops or not wear veils. Interesting.

I force others at the barrel of a gun to allow people to go free. Interesting you
don't agree.

> [Platt]
> What you continue to ignore is Pirsig's assertion that in evolutionary change,
> "someone has to be first." 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Who was the first person who solved Fermat's Last Theorum? You don't know do
> you? Neither do I? In fact, no one does. Because if someone did it "first"
> makes no difference whatsoever if it is not latched and moved into the
> collective mythos. BOTH the individual and her collective activity bring us
> "evolutionary change". 

Without the "someone first," you get nothing.  

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/