[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

Gene wrote:
> I'm a very uncertain person. I actually did mean it the more absurd way.
> All of my statements should have probably in front of them. Including
> that one. Probably. I'm really not sure if I am sure about anything.

I gather then that it's OK if I take whatever you say with a grain of 
salt? Or as the philosopher Roger Scruton said, "The man who tells you 
truth doesn't exist is asking you not to believe him. So don't." 

[Platt previously]
> The misfits and outcasts are individuals wouldn't you say? That's been >
> my point all along. They are the catalysts for moral evolution, not the
> > mob.
 
>  They are. Let's make this clearer. I'm Not arguing that individuals and
> collectives don't exist. I'm Not arguing that individuals aren't an
> important agent of social change. I'm Not telling you that collectives
> are the only thing that count. I AM telling you that individual Does Not
> equal Intellectual. Many counter-culturalists are spurred only by
> biological Quality, they're individuals. They don't fit in with the
> Crowd. They're not Intellectual Quality though. Intellectual patterns of
> value may reside in individuals, they may reside in collectives, maybe
> they float around, free in space! The only point I want to make to you,
> and convince you of, is that calling the intellectual level of the MOQ
> the "individual" level, is not correct at all.

So far I'm not convinced. "Counter-culturalists spurred by biological 
Quality" has me confused. Are you speaking of hippies? Intellectual 
patterns float around, free in space? Hmm. Now that's a novel idea 
plucked out of space. :-)

[Platt previously]
> All you are saying IMO is that no one person every painted a picture or
> > designed a war memorial or came up with an original theory or saved a
> > Zuni tribe from extinction.  Everything is done by committee. I don't
> > buy it for a minute. >
> 
> I don't see where you got Committee out of this. I'm not interested in
> groups of people all acting in unison. That'd be nice, but it's not
> likely. Every group has a leader, and every leader is part of his/her
> group.  An individual can only effect social change by having followers.
> They need a collective to carry their idea with them. All those examples
> are people who came From the collective, were created by it, and Inside
> that collective acted dynamically. The intellectual Quality is there,
> but it is removed from the social. Distinct.
> 
> I don't know how better to explain it, but do you start to see where I'm
> going with this?

I think all you are reiterating is the truism that it takes two to 
tango. I have ideas all the time about how to solve problems that pop 
up in my environment that do not require other people (the collective) 
to either confirm or deny or follow in any way. Of course, I haven't 
instigated a great deal of social change, but even if I did, Pirsig 
said it can only happen "person by person" and someone had to first. 
Sometimes ideas transfer from person to person rapidly as in the case 
of a fad, but most changes happen slowly person by person as in the 
case of the disappearance of honor. 

Platt