[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt previously]
> 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."
> 
> [Platt]
> So the distinction between the social and intellectual levels isn't
> true? That's news to me since Pirsig talks about the distinction all 
> through his book.
> 
> [Arlo]
> The independence between the social and intellectual is, according to
> Pirsig, a myth. A "tree to its shrub", as it were. However, it is your
> false dichotomy between "individual and collective" that I refer to.
> This, too, I would call a "myth", but I think illusion is more precise.

To my mind a dichotomy is a division between a larger entity. Like 
black and white is a dichotomy in the larger entity of color. But black 
is not "independent" of white. Without black there would be no white. 
Just so, Pirsig makes a distinction between the intellect and social 
levels within the larger abstraction of the universal moral order. If 
you want to call that distinction a myth or an illusion, your argument 
is with Pirsig, not me.  My distinction between the individual and  
collective levels are synonyms for Pirsig's distinction between the  
intellectual and society levels.  

> 
> [Platt]
> Descartes' revelation can hardly be called scientific.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Which sidesteps the discussion. 

No. You brought up atomic particles which are in the realm of science. 
I merely point out that Descartes' musings are hardly scientific.

> [Platt previously]
> 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
> 
> [Platt]
> By your analogy, biological entities can appear and disappear like 
> quarks. Let me know how that's done because I have a few termites I'd 
> like to have disappear.
> 
> [Arlo]
> The point is that "predictable behaviour" is another myth.

That's news to me, not to mention behavioral psychologists.  I can predict my
cat UTOE is not about to fly away like the birds he chases.  

> [Arlo previously]  
> Dynamic Quality is not contained by static patterns.
> 
> [Platt]
> Right, but the pattern of an individual human being can respond to it.
> 
> [Arlo]
> As can the pattern of a cell, or a cat (my condolensces on UTOE, by the
> way). "Quality is the response of an organism to its environment". 

Do you have a source for that quote? (Incidentally, UTOE is very much 
alive. I just used him as an example of the absolute certainty of 
death. Of course, if you are a Christian . . . .  :-)

Platt