[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, 26 Jul 2006 12:46:26 -0400
>
> > >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.
>
>
>You'll just to accept I have a you. It's an entity that exists in my mind.
>It might not be you, but then again you might not be you. So I don't see 
>how
>it is any worse.

I suppose ignorance is bliss.

>
> >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.
>
>
>Nope. It's my Idea of you.

Duh? Is that the word I'm searching for? No. That would be silly. Wouldn't 
it?

>

> >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?
>
>
>I simply cannot wrap my head around this. I can't. I'll try, and get back 
>to
>you.

Okay.

>
>
> > >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.
>
>
>Well, it is the origin of the quote. Hence seems related to me.

Ummm... I didn't take the university course you took. But I assure you the 
origin of the quote has nothing to do with comparing the works of man with 
the works of God. The quote originates with Protagoras of ancient Greece. 
FYI. You may want to look into getting your money back for that bogus course 
you took. I would.

>
> > >[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?
>
>
>They are Part of the person! The self is all the levels combined. The
>biological has it's role to play. If you get a big chunk of metal embedded
>in your brain, it might not kill you, but it can have effects on who you
>are! An inorganic pattern disturbing the biological pattern of your body 
>can
>alter your social and intellectual patterns! It seems clear to me that the
>biological is tied into the Self.

You are taking the levels literally and I am taking them conventionally.

>
> >
> >
> > If you don't know what you're experiencing, how can it be classified as
> > experience?
>
>
>Experience precedes cognizance. Experience is classified after the fact,
>post-mortem if you will. By the time you know and have organized what you
>experienced, it's done. Thinking simply distracts from experiencing. It's
>not the experience itself.

I think you have muddled things here and you need to reconsider what you'red 
saying. I won't bother quoting the definition of experience but perhaps you 
should acquaint yourself with it.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > >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.
>
>
>Duh.

Now, now, now. Didn't you complain before how I made you look silly! Yes you 
did, you silly you.

>
> >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.
>
>
>In a Real sense.

Metaphysics isn't real. It is a way of ordering reality. A convention.

>
> >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.
>
>
>I would say you are missing half the MOQ in that case. Half of Reality in
>fact. It's like trying to drive from boston to Seattle with a map that 
>stops
>in Dubuque Iowa.

And I would say we are on different wave lengths.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan


Brian: 'Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, you 
don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for yourselves! You're ALL 
individuals!'

The Crowd: 'Yes! We're all individuals!'

Brian: 'You're all different!'

The Crowd: 'Yes, we ARE all different!'

Man in crowd: 'I'm not...'

The Crowd: 'Shhhh!'