[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, 12 Jul 2006 00:24:38 -0400
>
> > >
> > >Dan said to David:
> > >I think there's some confusion here that I will try and clear up. Gene 
>M
> > >believes a person exists separately from the idea we might hold of that
> > >person.
> > >
> > >[Steve]
> > >I think pretty much everbody believes that.
> >
> > Hi Steve
> >
> > Pretty much everyone believes that because it's a high quality idea.
> > However, the Buddha taught that it is the essence of ignorance to 
>believe
> > in
> > an actual self. That's not to say that there's no subjective self in
> > Buddhism, only that there is no actual person behind the concept of "I".
> > The
> > Buddha taught that if this erroneous view is corrected then there would 
>be
> > no ignorance.
>
>
>The idea of a self is indeed false, but that doesn't mean that the idea of
>others is false as well. Even if I have no self, and you have no self, I
>have a you. You see?

I see that you have a concept of me. I fail to see how you can have a me 
when I don't even have a me.

>I have a version of you in my mind, a set of intellectual patterns with
>which I identify your behaviour and mannerisms, and I believe it to be
>actturate. If you were to die, I would still have that idea of you. 
>Although
>you no long have your idea of you. So even if you no longer exist, my idea
>of you lives as long as I do.

Of course it does. That's not me.

>
> >Don't you believe that I exist for example?
> >
> > I believe that you believe you exist.
>
>
>Not much of an answer.

I beg your pardon. I pondered over the question some time however and that 
was the only answer forthcoming.

>Although certainly correct!

It's good to find agreement.

>I believe that we All
>believe that we ourselves exist.

The concept of my self is a useful convention, nothing more. In a 
conventional sense, I believe my self exists. In a Dynamic sense, I do not 
exist.

>But do You believe that I exist?

Asked and answered.

>If it helps, I believe you exist.

I exist in a conventional sense. I think that's what you believe.

>Or how about this:
>If you were our driving and smashed your car into a tree at 60 mph, do you
>believe that tree exists?

As tree is imaginary and car too, no. I do not believe tree exists. Do you 
believe imaginary trees exist?

>
>"Man is always the 'measure of all things...'"
> >
> > >
> > >"Pneumonia is a biological pattern.  It is scientifically
> > verifiable.  ...
> > >Insanity on the other hand is an intellectual pattern. ... No 
>scientific
> > >instrument can be produced in court to show who is insane and who is
> > sane.
> > >There's nothing about insanity that conforms to any scientific law of 
>the
> > >universe.  The scientific laws of the universe are invented by sanity.
> > >There's no way by which sanity, using the instruments of its own
> > creation,
> > >can measure that which is outside of itself and its creations.  
>Insanity
> > >isn't an "object" of observation.  It's an alteration of observation
> > >itself.  There's is no such thing as a "disease" of patterns of
> > intellect.
> > >There's only heresy.  And that's what insanity really is.
> > >... It is a social and intellectual deviation, not a biological
> > deviation."
> > >[Dan]
> > >Man measures with intellect, with ideas. Always.
> > >[Steve}
> > >I think 'measure' in this quote ammounts to 'experience' in the MOQ 
>which
> > >says that experience comes in several varieties of which intellect is
> > only
> > >one kind.
> >
> > Measure in this context amounts to an evaluation or a basis of 
>comparison,
> > intellectual level activities.
>
>
>I learnt that quote for the first time in a university history course. It
>was used to sum up the Rennaissance, in which the idea of comparing
>ourselves and our works to God, and thus showing them as insignificant and
>shitty, we compared them only to ourselves. We no longer measure ourselves
>and our creations based on some mythical omnipotent Creator, but we measure
>ourselves to ourselves, and see how things Really stack up.
>
>Man is the measure of all things. All things are in relation to us, to us.

This is very interesting and as the MOQ is anti-theistic could you please 
explain what it has to do with the quote.

>
> >[Dan]
> > >We presume there's a person behind our idea of the person. And that is 
>a
> > >high quality presumption, I should think. At the same time however, 
>since
> > >we are unable to experience reality directly, we cannot know with
> > certainty
> > >that there really is a person there behind our idea of the person. All 
>we
> > >have are our assumptions. Always.
> >
> > How is the existence of a person scientifically verifiable? Where is 
>that
> > person at?
>
>
>I think what Steve is saying is that the biological patterns that make up a
>person are "verifiable", in that we have objective measurements that can
>show they exist. A scale for example, will prove that the person standing 
>on
>it exists. However I think you're talking about the person in the social 
>and
>intellectual sense.

Biological patterns are indeed verifiable but they are not the person. Are 
they?

>
>And I agree. All we have are our assumptions. So it's best to just go with
>them I find. As long as they prove consistent with experience reality.

Do you have a choice?

>
> >
> > >I disagree with "we are unable to experience reality directly." In the
> > MOQ
> > >reality is an abstraction from experience or is considered equivalent 
>to
> > >experience.
> >
> > All experience is a remembrance, an after-the-fact intellectualization.
> > There may be a "dim apprehension of we know not what" but until we put
> > sense
> > to it, that's all it is.
>
>
>I think True experience is DQ, that which occurs before anything. What you
>experience without words, without thoughts, without any filters.
>Intellectualization is not experience, it is after that fact, it is
>classifying and organizing, but it's not the same as experiencing in my
>opinion.

If you don't know what you're experiencing, how can it be classified as 
experience?

>
> >
> > >In the MOQ objects are not intellectual patterns as you say, they are
> > >inorganic and biological patterns.
> >
> > The MOQ is a collection of intellectual patterns of value.
>
>
>Yes. That does not invalidate the point Steve made here.

Good. You've made the connection that there can be more than one correct 
point of view.

>The MOQ is indeed a
>set of intellectual patterns, but these patterns tell us that physical
>objects are made up of inorganic and biological patterns.

In a conventional sense, yes.

>I personally
>believe social and intellectual patterns should be called objects as well,
>but I don't mix the levels. A chair, and my idea of a chair are different
>objects, but both objects, both true, and both real.
>

I respectfully disagree. There is no chair. Only the idea of chair.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan


Trust in Quality with all your heart;
Don't lean on your own understanding.
In all ways acknowledge Quality,
and 'it' will make your path straight.