[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Heather Perella]

Hey Steve, Platt, Ham, Arlo, Gene, and everybody else,

      Steve said:  "You suggest that, since we can't
agree, the levels
don't work, but the people arguing their points of
view on the levels feel that it does work for them or
they won't be pushing their perspectives.  The mark of
good art or a good philosophy is not that
we all see the same thing, but that we all find value
in it."

     Very well said, and I would like to add that the
levels help bring solidity or static patterns to what
could become or has become loosely placed values.  To
discuss art and philosophy with these levels, DQ, and
SQ provides definition and guidelines for discussions
sake that would not be present otherwise.  It's easy
to say self/not self, but how to show the obviously
linkage between these two apparently very opposite
values that exist here and now on this earth.  The
earth and sky are in joint session with these values
of self/not-self.  Since the earth and sky are
together with self/not-self going on's here, then a
link exists.  We talk about morals and thus they are
obviously here, but Ham has not tried to discuss these
generalities, especially recent posts I have had on
the subject matter.  Ham loves his website and thesis,
which is awesome on his part, but I understand it's
his life, and I don't think he wants to give up his
life.

     Platt said:  "Intellectual patterns float around,
free in space?'

     If I understand Gene correctly, which I
definitely understand Steve he has clearly showed how
the levels are to be valued and defined, but anyways
if I'm wrong Gene correct me.  Intellectual patterns
are supported by the levels below intellectual level. 
Without the biological brain and the exchange of
impressions on the social level, the intellectual
level of thought would not exist.
     This is why scientists currently study very
social creatures, such as killer whales, dolphins,
baboons (especially the highly social gelada baboons
of Ethiopia where their social activity and wide open
environment [grassy area] has encouraged 10's and
10's, etc... facial expressions and second only to
humans for the amount of different vocal expressions
they make within the order Primate.  These social
creatures, which obviously there are many more,
encourage a level higher than the social level, known
as the intellectual level where creatures of
biological and social capability can become increasing
masters of thought or symbolic manipulation. 
     When we make arrow heads, it is not that the
arrowhead is outside of our heads or even inside of
our heads we are on a level of artistic ability that
has the arrowhead be outside of our head and inside of
our head.  The thought that goes into this making of
an arrowhead doesn't stop in our brains and is not
floating in space.  Somehow, as human beings, we are
able to make arrowheads using something in our brains,
even though many other creatures, including ants have
brains, but we, as human beings, have tapped into a
level of intellect that quite frankly is difficult to
swallow, understand, and put into words.  
     I'm trying to side step the individual versus
collective and just going straight to thought or
intellect. 

     Ham said:  "...that we as individuals have no
original ideas, make no
individual contributions, and that mankind advances
only through the
collective intellect..."

     Ham, do not count out originality or
collectivity.  This individual versus collective has
become, for some, too much of a one or another and
that's that kind of approach.  I find truth in
originality and in collective intellect.  Without the
collective intellect originality would not exist, and
without originality no collective intellect would be
possible.  Why do I say this?  To answer my own
question, it is because on the shoulders of giants
(collective intellect) pieces are creatively attached
together and placed in the learning of any individual.
 What we need to understand from my perspective is DQ,
pure and simple, plain spoken DQ, which provides
question even within science.  Inquiry in science must
always happen or else hypothesis or theories would go
unchecked and that would be dogma, not science. 
Science is test, experiment, question, over and over
again.
     Thoughts are passed on from person to person and
thoughts themselves become detached from any
individual person.  To weed out any thought and to say
any thought is purely original is not possible.  We
all needed somebody to say 1+1=2 before Einstein could
even possibly think about E=mc2.  Let us not forget
our teachers all those years, whether they are in the
current public education system, our parents, or in
books, etc...  Now to say originality DOESN'T occur,
at all, not in its' pure sense, but in its added on
sense would not make sense to me either.  Einstein put
together the equation E=mc2, but this makes no sense
at all, even to an Einstein, without those before him
explaining what is energy, what is mass, what is
light, what is =, what is squared, and so much more
that comes with understanding this equation.  Yet, I
can see Einstein putting this all together like a
puzzle.  Fit this from here and that from over there
and Bam what we could call an original painting.
     I know I've tried to stay out of this individual
versus collective, but I really believe we have gone
astray in our approach to questions such as What is
thought? (or intellect) and What is social?, and how
interesting happenings cannot be peeled away from the
individual or the collective.  Between the social and
intellectual levels is not the question here.  The
question seems to be What is individual? and What is
collective?  Collective doesn't make thought and
individual doesn't make thought, on their own. 
Without society the individual would make very
incoherent sounds to us (as research has shown by
actual case studies of people who have been kept
separated from any acculturation (culture).  Without
the individual no acculturation would go from one
person to another person.  The question is 'What is
thought?' not the obvious: individual has thought and
society provides stimuli for thought to exist beyond
just animalistic bear grunts or wolf howls.
     This question 'What is thought?', now that's a
question that, at least, one of my philosophy
professors, did not want to tackle at all.  He did say
something like, 'What is it?  Is it out there
somewhere, as Platt similarly stated, floating in the
air?'  Yet, we have this intellect that cannot do
without society or individual, so thought itself is
the value pattern on what is called the intellectual
level, not so much is thought social or individual,
because I have been saying both.  Maybe if we look at
it this way.  Take away individual and do you have
thought?  NO  Take away collective and do you have
thought?  NO  So what then is thought or this
intellectual level crossing borders, making borders,
doing all kinds of crazy, wonderful, rational, and
imaginative 'things'?

Thanks,
SA  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com