[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 
 
> Platt said:
> > What I'm trying to say is that only individuals
> > "behave 
> > intellectually," regardless of what values they are
> > promoting or 
> > defending, as this site so clearly illustrates. 
> > Societies don't 
> > intellectualize.
> 
> Steve:
> Keep in mind that only individuals behave socially as
> well.

Yes. But as I've said many times, the levels are defined in large part 
by their relationship to other levels. An individual behaving socially 
is mostly a social level person. Lila, for example, was "intellectually 
nowhere." 

> But I don't think you mean to use the word in
> that way. To you this Individual is a type of
> person--an ideal person, and I think it's worth
> exploring this type of person from an MOQ perspective.
> I think you are just muddling things to say that the
> intellectual level is the same as the individual
> level. I could go for talking about the Individual or
> what ever you want to call him/her as a type of person
> but not as a type of pattern of value. I would say the
> same thing about Sam's Eudomia or whatever that was.
> We are talking about a person who understands the
> relationships between the static levels and with DQ
> and lives accordingly. The question I think you are
> actually after is: what are his values? I think Ayn
> Rand had a similar project, but she didn't understand
> DQ or the way intellect is dependent on the social
> level.

In a sense you're right because the individual level as I picture it 
deals in ideas.

> But to return to the point, I'm glad you accept that
> an individual is participating in intellectual values
> when he deals with ideas regardless of what the ideas
> are.

Yes, ideas and individuals go together like fur on a cat.

Regards,
Platt