[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Gene M" <boredandunstable at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:14:28 -0400
>
> > Thank you for your comments. I respectfully disagree. Both logic and 
>sense
> > have to do with reason. Now, one might be able to start with "wrong"
> > assumptions and make anything logical (somehow that doesn't make sense
> > though) but if a person starts with "right" assumptions only logical
> > conclusions will make sense. Right?
>
>
>I'm just saying that logic can be used to proven Anything using the 
>starting
>point you'd like. Thus it's hardly a perfect test of Reality. Logical 
>things
>often make no sense, because they begin with nonsenseical precepts. Sense 
>is
>something else, something closer to Quality I believe. You can make sense
>without being in any way logical as well I think.

'Logic' has to do with the study of the principles of reasoning while 
'sense' (as we're discussing it here) is the normal ability to think or 
reason soundly. I'm having difficulty understanding how a person could make 
sense without standing up to the scrutiny of logic. Perhaps you could 
provide an example.

>
>Perhaps part of the confusion is that the individual and the intellectual
> > level in the MOQ are not things. They are concepts.
>
>
>Ah! That is gonna be a problem if were to discuss this rationally. I 
>believe
>that concepts are as much a thing as a fish. Concepts and ideas are Real.
>They Exist. I think my idea of a chair is just as real as the chair, and
>both exist at once, seperate but related. Both are things.

I think the MOQ would say that the notion of the chair being real is a high 
quality idea. Tell me though, can you sit on your idea of a chair as easily 
as on a chair?

>
> > > In the MOQ, Quality, the Dynamic-static split, and the moral hierarchy
> > >of
> > > > static patterns are all intellectual patterns of value. The idea of
> > the
> > > > individual is too.
> > >
> > >
> > >Correct, the Idea of an individual is an intellectual pattern. The
> > >indvididual itself is not however.
> >
> > So you're saying the individual itself has a concrete reality?
>
>
>I'm saying ideas are not the things they represent.

How do you know?

>My idea of myself and
>someone else's idea of me are gonna be very different, is either one of 
>them
>correct? One generally assumes their own idea of themselves is "correct" 
>but
>that is often not the case. And no one is ever fully on bat either I feel. 
>I
>have an inherent reality, seperate from what I and others think of myself.

Of course you do. What is your inherent reality, if you don't mind me 
asking?

>
> >The intellectual part? Maybe?
> >
> > Are you asking me? I don't know! What are you asking me for?
>
>
>Sorry, I was just being facetious. It's a single part of the individual. 
>The
>intellectual part. That's it.

And how does one go about separating the intellectual part of the individual 
from the rest of the individual?

>
> >Precisely correct again. All concepts and ideas reside on the 
>intellectual
> > >level. However the things themselves, do not. The concept of the
> > individual
> > >is an intellectual pattern, however that does make the individual part 
>of
> > >the intellectual level. If I have an idea about someone, that idea is
> > part
> > >of the intellectual level, the other person however continues to exist
> > >indpendent of that.
> >
> > So you subscribe to the belief that things exist inherently in 
>themselves.
> > I
> > suggest this is at odds with the MOQ and may be another of the reasons 
>why
> > you object to Platt's individual "philosophy".
>
>
>I think it works well with the MOQ! A biological pattern of values, such as
>a oak tree, exists on it's own, whether I am aware of that oak tree or not.
>Whether I have intellectual patterns related to the oak tree's biological
>patterns, or the rock's inorganic patterns, does not detract from their own
>patterns. My ideas about them are just another kind of pattern.

How do you know the oak tree exists on its own? It is my contention (and the 
way I understand it, the MOQ's) that you have no possible way of determining 
the oak tree really exists other than by making an assumption. Is the tree I 
dream really there?

>
> >
> > >Please provide evidence where the MOQ says we can separate any part of
> > the
> > > > individual and contain said part in the intellectual level.
> > >
> > >
> > >The individual's ideas can be seperated from the individual and put 
>into
> > >the
> > >intellectual level. That's what the intellectual level is. Ideas,
> > concepts,
> > >abstraction. The individual's body, for example, is Not part of the
> > >intelelctual level. That's why I can't call it the individual level, 
>the
> > >individual is made up of all the levels, not contained in any one of
> > them.
> >
> > I think it is a mistake to look at the levels as existing independently 
>of
> > the intellectual level. The levels in the MOQ are conventions we can use
> > to
> > organize reality into an expanded point of view but they do not exist
> > independently.
>
>
>But Pirsig often goes on about how the levels are discrete! They're related
>and affect each other, but they are essentially independent one from the
>next. Although a certain amount is required from each to retain the overall
>balance. There are periods in history in which intellectual levels did not
>exist! There are even periods of history in which biological patterns did
>not yet exist! At one point, only inorganic patterns existed, all alone.
>They seem to have gotten along fine without intellect. As shown by the fact
>that intellect now is able to exist.

Metaphorically. What I mean to say is that the levels aren't really there. 
The levels are useful conventions to organize reality but they are not 
reality. We have no way of knowing if at one time only inorganic patterns 
existed. Perhaps it allows us to make sense of the world if we believe that, 
but no one was around to verify so it's pure speculation.

>A rock can exist independently of my
>intellect, of an ideas I might have of it, purely inorganic patterns of
>value.

Which rock would that be?

>
> >You seem to have taken a whole Lot of offense here. I'm not sure why, I
> > >guess you feel maybe platt is being censured?
> >
> > I didn't realize I was being offensive. Isn't he, though?
>
>
>Depends, do you think Intelligent Design is being censured by not being
>taught at public schools?

Public schools depend on public funds to operate. Any time public funds are 
involved it is illegal to discriminate on account of any person's religious 
preferences. So yes, in a way, intelligent design is being censured by not 
being taught. Still, as intelligent design is just another name for 
creationism, it would in fact be illegal to teach it in any public supported 
institution.

>And no one is stopping Platt from posting here,
>none of us are even capable of such an act. We argue against him because we
>believe he is wrong, no more.

Right. (Wink, wink)

>
>I stand corrected. I thought Steve didn't like Platt's idea but it is the
> > MOQ that dislikes Platt's idea.
>
>
>I'm pretty sure Steve doesn't much care for it either. And neither do I. I
>stand by the fact that it is completely at odds with the MOQ though.

Duly noted.

>
> >
> > >It's like you have a box with 4 boxes in it. All contents of the 
>greater
> > >box
> > >are sorted into those 4 boxes. The individual is comprised of these 4
> > >levels, and all things that make up the individual rest inside the
> > levels.
> > >The greater box is defined by the contents of the smaller boxes inside
> > it.
> > >Now you have platt trying to tell me that the greater box is actually 
>the
> > >same as one of the 4 smaller boxes inside it. So it contains itself. 
>That
> > >means the big box holds the little box, which holds the big box. It's
> > >infinite recursion. Logically, it doesn't hold up for me.
> > >
> > >Can you see why I am saying it makes no sense?
> >
> > I agree that in the context you've set up, what Platt is saying makes no
> > sense. However, I think the MOQ says the individual is made up of all 
>four
> > levels plus undefined Dynamic Quality. An individual isn't the things 
>that
> > make up the individual, however. Your box analogy doesn't work (for me).
>
>
>So, an individual is made up of these 4 things, but is not those 4 things?
>Then what in goodness is the individual?

The four levels of the MOQ are useful conventions and the individual is an 
intellectual pattern of value. But you won't be able to put that 
intellectual pattern of value under a microscope and see the individual it 
represents.

>I think this is perhaps at the base of our disagreement. My example shows
>exactly how I feel, and why I cannot accept the individual level as part of
>my interpretation of the MOQ. As far as I understand the MOQ the individual
>is as I have represented it. How do you define it so that this whole thing
>makes sense?

In the language of everyday life the individual is separate. And in the 
language of everyday life the individual is a high quality idea. Still, if 
if a person were to look for the individual - if they were to try and really 
pin down exactly where the individual is seated - they'd never find it. 
There is no little "I" sitting behind the curtain running the show.

>
> >I'm not at all sure I agree with this! This seems like essentially 
>nonsense
> > >to me. So if I were to shoot a man, I would inf act be doing nothing 
>more
> > >than killing my idea of that man?
> >
> > I think it is easy to forget how it is that we experience the world. 
>Yes.
> > You would be doing nothing more than killing your idea of that man. Your
> > idea of the man is all there is.
>
>
>Tell that to the man's widow, children, the police and the judge. I doubt
>many people get off a murder rap with "Don't worry your honor! I only 
>killed
>my Idea of the deceased."

You are falling into the trap of believing cause and condition do not apply 
to ideas. I warned you about that; you don't remember, do you?

>
> >How does that work? When somebody dies
> > >does everyone immediately forget they ever existed? No. When somebody
> > dies
> > >other people's idea of them live on, their own ideas even live on, in
> > >recorded form and in the minds' of others. Ideas do not die with the
> > >individual. The potential for that individual to form new ideas is 
>lost,
> > >but
> > >so is their potential to defecate. That doesn't mean anything of
> > importance
> > >to the levels.  What are you trying to say here?
> >
> > You seem to believe the individual exists seperately and apart from the
> > ideas they have, the people they know, and other peoples' ideas of that
> > individual. I would suggest that belief is at odds with the MOQ. Ghosts
> > aside, ideas do not live on after the individual dies. You also seem to 
>be
> > level shifting here between biological and intellectual patterns of 
>value.
>
>
>Plato's ideas would certainly appear to have lived on beyond him. No?

No. His representations of his ideas lived on, yes. His ideas died with him 
though, as will yours and mine.

>If I
>were to die tomorrow, my ideas would remain here on the archives of this
>mailing list for as long as it was kept online, for others to peruse and
>argue over if they wanted to. Thus I believe the ideas outlast the
>individual.

But these words that come up on your monitor are not your ideas. They are 
representations of your ideas. For example, as a writer, I have the most 
terrible time getting my ideas to flow from my mind to my fingertips, so to 
speak. Haven't you experienced it too?

>
>Here's another case of ideas disconnected from the individual. Any time any
>group of people get together to discuss an individual's ideas. Like here.
>Other people will take the originator's idea and use it to their own ends,
>molding it and changing it. This molding of the person's ideas goes on
>independantly of the person who created the idea, yet it is still called
>their idea.

Better to call it a representation of their idea, to be precise.

>
>Thanks again for your comments,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > "To think you will not think
> > Is also thinking of something.
> > Will you resolve to think
> > Even of not thinking?" (Takuan)
> >
>
>  yeah, that's a real toughy! The hardest part of not thinkig is not 
>thinking
>of not thinking. Heheh. Took me ages to get past that, still working on it
>frankly.
>
>I'm quite enjoying this discussion! It's an unusual change from arguing 
>with
>platt, in that you actually answer ideas given and respond rationally and
>logically! This a great discussion, keep the responses coming.

Thanks for your comments,

Dan


"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." (Ralph Waldo 
Emerson)