[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Platt]
So is the dichotomy [individual v. collective] true or false? 

[Arlo]
It is an illusion. Or a myth, such as Pirsig refers to when he says, "The
intellectual level of patterns, in the historic process of freeing itself from
its parent social level, namely the church, has tended to invent a myth of
independence from the social level for its own benefit." Or, perhaps as he says
in ZMM, "What keeps the world from reverting to the Neanderthal with each
generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos, transformed into logos but still
mythos, the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are
united in the body of man. To feel that one is not so united, that one can
accept or discard this mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what the
mythos is." According to Pirsig then, this is something you do not understand.

Some more Pirsig...

"Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived. Nature tells
us only what our culture predisposes us to hear. The selection of which
inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore is made on the basis of
social patterns of value, or when it is not, on the basis of biological
patterns of value.

Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was a historically shattering declaration of
independence of the intellectual level of evolution from the social level of
evolution, but would he have said it if he had been a seventeenth century
Chinese philosopher? If he had been, would anyone in seventeenth century China
have listened to him and called him a brilliant thinker and recorded his name
in history? If Descartes had said, "The seventeenth century French culture
exists, therefore I think, therefore I am," he would have been correct."

It is the "uniqueness" of (what Vygotsky might call) "microgenetic experience"
dialectically paired with the internalization of the "collective consciousness"
(mythos) in a singular organism from which social level individuals (Platt,
Arlo, etc.) emerge. Without the mythos, "we" are nothing but biological
organisms. With the mythos, we are able to emerge as "thinking" beings. "The
seventeenth century French culture exists (mythos), therefore I think,
therefore I am". To try to say that not only are "Descartes" and "seventeenth
century French culture" wholly separate, but also OPPOSED forces, is
ridiculous.

[Platt]
So how come the repeatable, predictable static pattern of an amoeba  reacting to
acid is responding to Dynamic Quality?

[Arlo]
"But in modern quantum physics all that is changed. Particles "prefer" to do
what they do. An individual particle is not absolutely committed to one
predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute cause is just a very
consistent pattern of preferences." (Lila)

So much for "predictable". As Pirsig says, its just "a very consistent pattern
of preferences". I agree.

Is "Dynamic v. social" the same as "intellectual v. social"? No.

"In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided
into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and
intellectual patterns."

Intellectual patterns are one form of static patterns. 

"But Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic. It is
value that cannot be contained by static patterns."

Dynamic Quality is not contained by static patterns.

Finis.

Arlo