[MD] Neoconservatism

[Vincent Edison Luther]

Hi Gene, Platt,

Gene:
> > For me, the Intellectual level is a personal one,
> each individual has
> > their own Static Intellectual Quality stored
> inside their head. 

Each individual also has its own set of biological
patterns.

Keep in mind also that the intellectual patterns that
a person participates in are not generally unique to
the individual. Patterns of thought that are deemed to
be high quality by one person (e.g. 1+1=2 over 1+1=3)
are frequently shared by others in "the collective"
since "the collective" is required to perpetuate these
patterns. Newton was standing onthe shoulders of
giants and the intellectual level as a whole stands on
the shoulders of the social level. Though some social
patterns may inhibit intellectual development, the
intellectual level only exists because of other social
patterns.

Platt said:
> I agree. I prefer to call the Intellectual level the
> Individual level 
> for the reason you cite. It also follows that the
> Social level might 
> better be called the Collective level. 

I doubt that the next edition of Lila will include
such a change.

Pirsig defined intellect as simply thinking and as
"the manipulation of abstract symbols that stand for
patterns of experience." While it is true that only
individuals can manipulate symbols (participate in
intellectual patterns) it is also true that only
individuals can participate in social patterns.

Platt, I don't think your use of individual and
collective serves to clarify the MOQ. It furthers your
political agenda in the same way that conservatives of
late have been so successful. I'm reminded of such
victories as "the death tax" over "the estate tax."
But such politcial wars of words do not make
intellectual distinctions. They just color the terms
with emotion which is not helpful here. Plus, as I
said, we are talking about patterns of thought when we
refer to intellectual patterns of value not patterns
of individuals.


>Politically,
> the left tends to 
> think in terms of the Collective welfare state
> level, the right in 
> terms of the Individual private property level.
> There's little doubt 
> about which is the higher on the evolutionary
> ladder.

I never heard of these levels. This is certainly not
Pirsig's MOQ.

If I had to classify property rights as a type of
pattern of value I'd have to say it is a biological
pattern of value since animals know mine from yours.
(e.g. that other dog better not try to play with my
dog's toy. He'll snap at him for sure.)

Platt, just because you like personal property as I do
doesn't mean it has to be a higher level pattern. I
like food, too. While I'm at it, where would we be
without that merely inorganic pattern of gravity?

Regards,
Steve





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