[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Gene M]

Platt wrote to Arlo:

> So is the dichotomy true or false?
>

Mu! You're trying to trick us! Luckily Pirsig gave us the means to evade
this one. Answering either yes or no would be a lie. The question has no
value.

Like saying my stepping out of the way of oncoming truck or hopping off a
> hot stove is
> responding to DQ. Surely you jest.
>

Actually Pirsig frequently uses the hot stove as a method for demonstrating
the effect of DQ! You sit on a hot stove, you don't think to yourself "This
is hot! I should move!", no! You just jump off. Afterwards you'll identify
the cause and effects, but first is Action! This is what DQ is.

Platt wrote to me:
>
> [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.


I was attempting to illuminate the point that there is no such answer. You
ask questions that you should know are not answerable, and then act pleased
when no answer comes. Your questions are not for the purpose of
understanding, but the purpose of winning. I find this to be of low Quality.
You ask me: "Where do cells hold the information necessary to create a full
human being?" I tell you there is no such place. So you think you're right,
but the question itself is of no value. I stand by my answer that follows
this.

> 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 Quality, he looked back and found all sorts of historical documents that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."


Of course, but that someone is of no important, other than socially!

[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.


I'm neither a physicist, nor a biologist, I have no answers for you. All I
have to work with is Pirsig's interpretations. I'm sorry.

[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.


Actually most books are based off other books. You know shakepseare wrote
dozens of plays and  only 3 of them were original? The rest were just
re-hashing of old stories. He just managed to tell them better than anyone
else had before him. So his became the defacto stories. This is a great
example of DQ leading social patterns. There's also the old saying about
there only being, I think, 6 actual stories to tell. Everything else is just
details that have difference from story to story. These sorts of books are
definately static social patterns though. When it comes to intellectual
patterns in books, it seems like almost all of them are rehashings of old
ideas. Ever heard the saying "Everything in philosphy is just a footnote to
Plato"? Patterns just keep cycling around, very little original content
exists, just new ways of organizing it.

>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.


Thanks for the kind words on my little brain child there. It's not a very
original idea, but I like it. I mean, if Pirsig can talk about static
inorganic patterns like carbon and hydrogen trying to escape the forces
acting on them, moving towards biology and freedom from oth static inorganic
patters, trying to get out of their lot in life. Why not talk about ideas
the same way? It actually makes a lot more sense a lot of the time. I'm not
so stuck on my static social patterns that I can't try out some new ideas.
Intellectual static patterns are their own entities. Like a molecule, like a
cell, like a person, like a society. They're ALL just static patterns of
value. The molecules that make up a cell don't OWN that cell. They can't
call it Their cell. Just because I have an idea, doesn't make it My idea.

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


A lot of them might resent becoming celebrities. Alot of people tend to
resent becoming celebrities. It's a common phenomena.

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.


I think I've put my finger on part of the problem I've been having with this
discussion. I've heard Individual vs. Collective painted as Intellectual vs.
Social, or Dynamic vs. Social. I think the reality is that it is Social vs.
Social!!
Individuals only exist in society. No other level. The concept of an
individual exists wholly there. An individual can only exist in contrast to
a collective. What level has collectives? Social. So an individual can only
exist On the Social Level! Inorganic, Biological and Intellectual are doing
their own thing. Sometimes they get subordinated so an Individual can make
themselves known as such to the collective, but they're essentially outside
the whole thing.

You, Platt, are trying to subjugate the intellectual level to the social
level, make it just another part of the social level, the individual part. I
say nay. This is immoral and of low Quality.

-Gene