[MD] Argumentation: Social/Intellectual

[Gene M]

>
> We're collections of static patterns of value, yes, and some of those
>
patterns entail ideals of property ownership. Over coffee this morning, my
> attorney assured me that we can indeed own intellectual patterns of value
> as
> she mumbled something about copyright law (in between bites of blueberry
> muffin).
>
> Gene, I think you are perhaps misreading what Matt wrote...we_are_static
> patterns...we don't have ideas; ideas don't have us...we ARE ideas!
>
> This is something I touched on some time ago in a discussion here with my
> friend Mark Maxwell. If we change our thinking we change our behavior, and
> if we change our behavior we change the outcome. It behooves us as human
> beings to realize our potential is limited only by the ideas we have as
> self.


Agreed.

>I dunno how Much I feel they are disconnected. Currently, I would say they
> >are incredibly tightly linked. But I mean, I would say I as a person am
> as
> >much shaped as ideas other people have come up with, as by the ideas I
> have
> >come up with. In fact, most of the ideas I have are reformulations of
> >someone else's ideas it seems. If I can be affected as strongly by and
> idea
> >from "Outside myself" as one I come up with "inside" my head, then where
> is
> >the link between individual and idea? Sure an individual has the idea,
> but
> >I mean, so do lots of individuals.


> How can you tell if the idea originates "inside" your head or "outside"?


That's a hell of a question!  I guess I've had internal and external
explained to me since I was a small child. The reason I put "outside" and
and "inside" in quotes is that I'm not sure I believe either exists. Is
there even a way to actually know this? I bet Platt would know, but I pretty
much think they're the same thing.

>How about this? When an individual person dies, does society fail? Do all
> >of
> >their ideas simply dissapear? No.
>
> Yes. All their ideas simply disappear. That's what we (the living) miss
> the
> most, I think. As for society failing: how would the individual know
> anything at all if they were dead? What you seem to be pointing to is the
> living. There is no doubt from the perspective of the living that the
> living
> go on living even after "an individual person" dies yet from the
> perspective
> of the individual, the universe ceases to exist at death, as does society.
> Would you agree?


Agreed, for the individual Reality has ceased. For everyone else, it goes on
and the dead's static patterns all continue, I suppose. An individual dies,
and their static patterns all continue? I dunno, that seems siginificant to
me for some reason.

I think the MOQ would say death is the end of social and intellectual
> patterns of value but not the end of inorganic and biological patterns of
> value. Inorganic molecules still exist, and DNA remains viable for
> thousands
> of years in some situations. So, how can the concept of ownership (being a
> collection of social and intellectual patterns of value) outlast the
> "individual person"?


I think that it may be the "end" of social and biological patterns, as in
they can't come up with any new ones. But for the existing static patterns
of value, they definately continue past death.
People's ideas and social impact continue on past their death, sometimes for
generations, sometimes for millenia.


> Perhaps my questions will help. Perhaps not.
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>
> Dan


Questions are Always useful. Thanks!

-Gene