[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Gene M" <boredandunstable at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:42:34 -0400
>
> > I appreciate that. Still, I contend that Platt is making sense in a
> > logically consistent manner. That isn't to say you are wrong, however.
>
>
>There is an important difference between logical consistency and sense. If
>you start with the right assumptions you can make Anything logically
>consistent. However they still might make absolutely no sense. Now platt's
>individual level, I'm certain, makes perefect sense to him. But for me, it
>makes none at all. It has nothing to do with the intellectual level as I
>view it.

Hi Gene

Thank you for your comments. I respectfully disagree. Both logic and sense 
have to do with reason. Now, one might be able to start with "wrong" 
assumptions and make anything logical (somehow that doesn't make sense 
though) but if a person starts with "right" assumptions only logical 
conclusions will make sense. Right?

>
>They are both concepts.
>
>
>Salmon and minnows are both fish, they're not the same thing. These are two
>concepts, that are not at all the same thing.

Perhaps part of the confusion is that the individual and the intellectual 
level in the MOQ are not things. They are concepts.

>
>Dan:
> >
> > In the MOQ, Quality, the Dynamic-static split, and the moral hierarchy 
>of
> > static patterns are all intellectual patterns of value. The idea of the
> > individual is too.
>
>
>Correct, the Idea of an individual is an intellectual pattern. The
>indvididual itself is not however.

So you're saying the individual itself has a concrete reality?

>
> >Steve:
> > >That is why the individual is not Pirsig's fourth level. Only part of 
>the
> > >individual
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > Which part?
>
>
>The intellectual part? Maybe?

Are you asking me? I don't know! What are you asking me for?

>
>Steve:
> >
> > >is contained in the set of all patterns of thought known as the
> > >intellectual level, so the intellectual level is not the individual.
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > I think that the MOQ would say the concept of the individual is an
> > intellectual pattern of value just as the concept of the intellectual
> > level
> > is an intellectual pattern of value.
>
>
>Precisely correct again. All concepts and ideas reside on the intellectual
>level. However the things themselves, do not. The concept of the individual
>is an intellectual pattern, however that does make the individual part of
>the intellectual level. If I have an idea about someone, that idea is part
>of the intellectual level, the other person however continues to exist
>indpendent of that.

So you subscribe to the belief that things exist inherently in themselves. I 
suggest this is at odds with the MOQ and may be another of the reasons why 
you object to Platt's individual "philosophy".

>
>Please provide evidence where the MOQ says we can separate any part of the
> > individual and contain said part in the intellectual level.
>
>
>The individual's ideas can be seperated from the individual and put into 
>the
>intellectual level. That's what the intellectual level is. Ideas, concepts,
>abstraction. The individual's body, for example, is Not part of the
>intelelctual level. That's why I can't call it the individual level, the
>individual is made up of all the levels, not contained in any one of them.

I think it is a mistake to look at the levels as existing independently of 
the intellectual level. The levels in the MOQ are conventions we can use to 
organize reality into an expanded point of view but they do not exist 
independently.

>
>Okay. Now we're getting to it. So you want to impose restictions on what we
> > can think and write about the MOQ. And (of course) you (who else) will 
>be
> > the authority who decrees what works and what doesn't. Yep. That is the
> > language of everyday life. What (I think) is so cool about the MOQ is 
>that
> > it gives us a way of stepping outside the shortsightedness of the 
>language
> > of everyday life. Most people don't see that though. Do they?
>
>
>You seem to have taken a whole Lot of offense here. I'm not sure why, I
>guess you feel maybe platt is being censured?

I didn't realize I was being offensive. Isn't he, though?

>I'm not sure. It's not that
>Steve is trying to dictate what is and is not MOQ, he's simply stating the
>observation that platt's individual level makes no consistence logical 
>sense
>within the greater framework of the MOQ. He's not saying it's wrong because
>he doesn't like it, it's wrong because the MOQ says it is wrong.

I stand corrected. I thought Steve didn't like Platt's idea but it is the 
MOQ that dislikes Platt's idea.

>
>I thought he said that the individual and the intellectual level can be
> > viewed as the same. That's what we're talking about. Right? I'm not for
> > sure
> > but I really hope it is. What I think I said was that what Platt is 
>saying
> > and what Mr. Pirsig is saying is not mutually exclusive. I am pretty 
>sure
> > about that (not that I am right - mind you - but rather about what I
> > said).
> > Still, I thought Platt had an idea, not a philosophy. Platt has a
> > philosophy? Wow! Now that is cool!
>
>
>As far as I understand it, that is what you said, and what we are in fact
>talking about.

Oh but I'm happy to read that! I would have been rather embarassed if that 
were not the case.

>What were saying is that the intellectual level and a human individual
>cannot possibly be construed as the same thing by the MOQ, the very idea
>makes No sense.

I got that part.

>
>It's like you have a box with 4 boxes in it. All contents of the greater 
>box
>are sorted into those 4 boxes. The individual is comprised of these 4
>levels, and all things that make up the individual rest inside the levels.
>The greater box is defined by the contents of the smaller boxes inside it.
>Now you have platt trying to tell me that the greater box is actually the
>same as one of the 4 smaller boxes inside it. So it contains itself. That
>means the big box holds the little box, which holds the big box. It's
>infinite recursion. Logically, it doesn't hold up for me.
>
>Can you see why I am saying it makes no sense?

I agree that in the context you've set up, what Platt is saying makes no 
sense. However, I think the MOQ says the individual is made up of all four 
levels plus undefined Dynamic Quality. An individual isn't the things that 
make up the individual, however. Your box analogy doesn't work (for me).

>
> >
> > >Dan:
> > >To "kill" the individual is to kill the idea of the
> > >individual. Therefore, it appears that the concept of the individual 
>and
> > >the individual cannot stand apart. Would you agree?
>
>
>I'm not at all sure I agree with this! This seems like essentially nonsense
>to me. So if I were to shoot a man, I would inf act be doing nothing more
>than killing my idea of that man?

I think it is easy to forget how it is that we experience the world. Yes. 
You would be doing nothing more than killing your idea of that man. Your 
idea of the man is all there is.

>How does that work? When somebody dies
>does everyone immediately forget they ever existed? No. When somebody dies
>other people's idea of them live on, their own ideas even live on, in
>recorded form and in the minds' of others. Ideas do not die with the
>individual. The potential for that individual to form new ideas is lost, 
>but
>so is their potential to defecate. That doesn't mean anything of importance
>to the levels.  What are you trying to say here?

You seem to believe the individual exists seperately and apart from the 
ideas they have, the people they know, and other peoples' ideas of that 
individual. I would suggest that belief is at odds with the MOQ. Ghosts 
aside, ideas do not live on after the individual dies. You also seem to be 
level shifting here between biological and intellectual patterns of value.

Thanks again for your comments,

Dan

"To think you will not think
Is also thinking of something.
Will you resolve to think
Even of not thinking?" (Takuan)