[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

[Gene]
> 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.

The question has great value in everyday life as well as in Western 
philosophy. Many words have filled the pages of our philosophy texts on 
the subject of truth, my favorite being a book by Felipe Fernandez-
Armesto entitled simply, "Truth." And, one of my favorite passages from 
his book relates directly to your Zen answer:

"Zen is favorite 'orientalism' of western revellers in uncertainty 
because it seem to represent par excellence an ancient tendency of 
Buddhist philosophy: the claim that every perspective is evanescent and 
that none is objectively correct. So the oriental temptation leads back 
to relativism (the truth of every group is fashioned by its needs) or 
to a more radical denial that truth is meaningful or expressible. The 
orienteers return disoriented."  

Or as Wilber, another favorite of mine,  put it, " . . .profoundly 
incoherent."

Gene: 
> 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.

No. Pirsig uses the hot stove example to illustrate low Quality. Nor is 
experience alone Dynamic Quality. Pure experience is Quality which he 
split for purposes of his metaphysics into Dynamic and static.

Pirsig illustrates Dynamic Quality by examples in Chapter 9 of Lila 
when one heard a great song for the first time and when one had a heart 
attack.  

Gene:
> 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.

And I say you make assertions for which you have no evidence and thus 
no reason to believe and thus of no value. 

> > 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!

Likewise, society is of no importance without individuals. It is the 
brujo-like like individuals in society who are the catalysts for the 
evolutionary life force, as Pirsig makes clear. That's who and what is 
important. 

> [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.

Apology accepted.

> [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.

Yes, I've heard all that, too. But have never seen evidence produced to 
support the claims. Seems to me such opinions are voiced by persons who 
never had an original idea to cover up their own inadequacies. 

> > > 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.

So I gather you won't copyright the 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.
> 
> 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.

To say it's all social is like saying every individual has a mother and 
father, ergo, individuals are social. To attach great importance to 
such truisms is low Quality.

Platt