[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

[Platt previously]
> > Oh? Where in society does an idea reside before an individual
> > discovers it?
> 
[Gene] 
>  That's like asking where in inorganic patterns an entire human being is
> contained!

No, I'm not asking you to go back to the Big Bang and explain 
evolution. I'm merely asking you where in the social level an an idea 
resides before it is discovered. That you don't have an answer is 
illuminating.

> All the parts of the idea are already existing in the social
> mythos. Notice that in ZMM after Phaedrus came to the knowledge of
> Quality, he looked back and found all sorts of historical documents that
> he saw as referencing the very idea he had just come up with. Like
> pieces of the puzzle had been staring at us all, until someone finally
> put them together. Intellectual Patterns come from the Society. It's a
> basic principle of the MOQ.

It's also a basic principle of the MOQ that "someone has to be first."

[Platt previously]
> Pirsig stated that only a living being (individual) can respond to DQ,
> stated in a context of human beings. I agree. Perhaps you can
> illustrate how inorganic patterns, for example, strive for DQ.
 
[Gene] 
> Easilym, Pirsig spends the early parts of Lila going over this. He
> states that in one could view Evolution as a long series of escapes from
> inorganic patterns. Such as Gravity. The more evolved something is, the
> more freedom it has from Gravity, and the other physical forces. So the
> DQ for inorganic material was to try and liberate themselves from these
> forces, so they came up with the idea of linking together, to form new
> molecules, until they struck upon DNA and Proteins as a means of
> propagating their DQ changes, while holding onto the Static Quality
> enough not to degenerate back into base molecules. And they built
> themselves up and up and up until finally biology was achieved. That was
> DQ for inorganic patterns according to Pirsig.

I asked how inorganic patterns "strive" (present tense), not "strived" 
(in the past) for DQ. Big difference. 

[Platt previously]
> What good is an idea that lies buried in some mysterious Never-Never
> Land? Seems to me the first individual to unearth it is the important 
> part of the equation. They are celebrated for good reason.
 
[Gene] 
> Have't you ever noticed that almost all great intellectual patterns have
> arisen from multiple sources at once it seems? The telephone was
> patented by 3 people within a few weeks. Calculus was introduced by 2
> seperate individuals with no contact within months of each other.

There have been a few examples of such coincidences. But very few 
intellectual patterns, like books written for example, have been exact 
replicas. In fact, none that I can think of.

>I
> think if you stopped thinking of ideas as somehow subjugated to
> Humanity, you'd see things much clearer. Just like Inorganic Patterns
> wanted to get free of the forces controlling them, this same drive for
> freedom applies to Intellectual Patterns. Ideas want to be free, they're
> trying to escape out into the world to thrive. The idea is as much an
> individual as the person who thought it up. Respect it.

Wow. Ideas have personalities of their own? "Wanting to be free, trying 
to escape out into the world?" Now there's an idea that probably should 
have stayed locked up :-)  But now that it's out there, let's see how 
long it survives. 

> Remember, celebrity it s purely social method of propogation and
> control. So by celebrating an Individual, you're making them important
> in Society. You're actually taking him back Down to the social level by
> making him important.

Next time I meet an author, I'll have to ask her if she objects to 
becoming important to society.

> The MOQ isn't about the rise of Individuals, it's about the
> rise of Intellectual Patterns. For the time being we're the best source
> of them, but who knows! In a thousand years, maybe ideas will be
> completely divorced from humanity, living on all on their own.
> Intellectual Patterns are Not our creation, they are Quality! We are
> partly Their creation. We don't own them, they own Us!

Well, since I'm really interested in the time being, I'll stick to the 
idea that the rise of intellectual patterns and the rise of individuals 
went hand in hand, each dependent on the other. As for the future, your 
guess is as good as mine.

Platt