[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Gene M]

> >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.


I would say conflicting emotions. You ever have that feeling when you really
dislike something, but can't seem to stop doing it. Or are disgusted, yet
watch. Or are scared, yet happy. Most of these are not logical states in my
mind, but they certainly make sense. If you descrive your experience to
someone else they will understand, and know what you mean. The sense is
there, the logic is not.

>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?


Of course not, but that is simply because they are of a different order of
being. One is intellectual, the other inorganic. Can I alter the appearance
of the chair as readily as my idea of the chair?
They're are different types of patterns completely.
> >

> > > 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?


This brings up up the whole debate of who we know anything. I'm the kind of
person who doesn't believe I Know anything. I simply believe of a lot of
stuff. That happens to be one of the things I believe. I can't prove it, and
I doubt you can prove me wrong. You either believe it or you don't. I've
tried both, and I prefer to believe it is so. Nothing more.

>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?


I can't say. I have an idea about who and what I am, but I'm not really
sure. I'm unfortunately hampered by being inside my own head, and thus I
can't say for sure if I'm right about myself or not. I like to believe there
is a coherent entity within me that directs my actions, and through proper
awareness and introspection I can come closer to understanding myself.

>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?


Well, I sort of think of it as the part that isn't fleshy, and full of guts,
blood, and bones. The intellectual part is the ideas that that person holds.

>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?


Again, it's a belief I hold. Nothing more. I frankly prefer to think the
tree exists in it's own right. It makes more sense to me, than the world
existing only when I or another consciousness(assumedly) interacts with it.

>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.


That's just another belief we do not share I suppose. The levels are a
concept we use to break down reality into neat little pieces that we can
understand and relate to. No?
So even if the levels themselves do not exist, as such, maybe the little
pieces of reality we put into them do. So I can say I am made up of
biological, social and intellectual patterns, and break myself down into
pieces that go into those boxes, the boxes might be imaginary. But the
pieces are real. Do you see what I mean?

>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?


Which rock would you like it to be?

>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.


Exactly. Intelligent Design offers nothing other than clouding minds with a
debate that doesn't exist. If we can teach ID, we should also be teaching
FSM, or pastafarianism as it's known. It's about as useful.

>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)


You got something in your eye?

> >
> > > 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.


The individual, I believe, is more than just an intellectual pattern. It is
also the biological, social and inorganic patterns as well. Trying to find
it with a microscope would be like trying to find a forest with a manifying
glass, tree by tree. You need to zoom out, Waaaay out away from the
intellectual patterns of value to see the individual.

>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.


Agreed. The individual is an illusion, created by the blending of the four
levels of value and the ability to respond to DQ within those levels. The
individual is the big box that holds all the little boxes full of values.
The individual is more than just an idea. I don't just think I'm hungry, I'm
actually quite hungry. I can experience biological value just as readily as
intellectual value. Because I am composed of both.

>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?


I actually, really don't. I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
Could you clarify please?

>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.


Fair enough. I could readily agree with this. Ideas very similar to plato's
ideas lived on after his dead then. We could call them children of his
ideas. Is it crazy to think that ideas are little autonomous individuals of
their own? They live in a space inside our minds, and go about interacting
with other ideas, fighting, mating, spawning new ideas. Why not? I think
it's a fantastically interesting idea!

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?


Oh of course I have! Everyday I try to explain an idea to someone and feel
like I'm just not getting my point across. Is it my fault, is it their
fault? Or is the medium to be faulted? It's difficult to answer.

>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.


Sure. Fair enough. Here's a question though. What is a representation of an
idea? Is it also an idea? Or is it something different entirely?

Keep up the feedback, I am enjoying this conversation immensely!

-Gene