[MD] Neoconservatism

[Heather Perella]

Hi Gene, Platt, VEL, and others,

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

     VEL, this was why I am undecided even when Arlo
and Platt both brought up good points earlier this
month as to whether the Intellectual level is
collective or individual.  I leaned towards the
individual level because of brujo.  This individual,
as many individuals, such as Newton, were able to
stand away from the crowd and notice something unique
and original.  Yet, I completely understand 'on the
shoulders of giants' concept, which without those
before him, Newton wouldn't have been able to come up
with his ideas.  I'll comment more about this further
on.
 

     VEL said:  "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."

     Very good point.  I still wonder about that
individual on the intellectual level bringing
originality to the table of discussion.
 
     VEL said:  "...as I said, we are talking about
patterns of thought when we refer to intellectual
patterns of value not patterns of individuals."

     Patterns of thought.  That makes this discussion
easier to understand.  Yet, now my mind wonders about
order versus freedom.  Patterns of thought in a tight
order could also be transcribed as collective
pressure.  This order may hinder the originality and
freedom that any individual may come up with.  Taking
thoughts of patterns from other individuals or even a
bird, and yet coming up with something dynamic to
everybody else, whereas the individual addressed,
identified, and made static on the intellectual level
so the individual may introduce this originality to
others so a forum may collectively support or argue
against.

     Gene said in a later post:  "And the Intellectual
level should be the most open of all!  No one wants to
hoard thoughts, they need to be shared so that they
can be refined, leaned down and hopefully reach
understanding. Separation is so artificial."

     Yes, this is an excellent point.  Though it
doesn't provide enough conclusion to my questioning in
the 'collective versus individual' debate this debate
has turned into a mirror image that reflects 'order
versus freedom' debate for me.  These two debates are
merging, for me, into one debate, using different
terminology.  
     This is how your use of "most open of all" comes
off the screen to me and I notice freedom is necessary
for quality intellectual values.  This "most open of
all" hints to a collective order, also, that is
sharing freely individual thoughts.  Anybody have a
way to get me out of this collective versus individual
or order versus freedom argumentation?  Sure, quality
is the answer, which only would mean to me that I
would have to sit on this question for a while to see
what happens, but if anybody else has a suggestion I
would appreciate some input.
     Sometimes I wonder if my indecision is due to the
discussion coming very close to the level above the
intellectual level, which Pirsig said is the dynamic
level.  Am I seeing the split VEL mentioned before it
actually splits apart?  Is this why I am noticing
dichotomies of individual versus collective and
freedom versus order, dancing in my head?  Is this why
these dichotomies both conclude, together, at least
for me, valuable arguments not only according to the
collective argument alone or the individual argument
alone?  Is this why they both fashion reasonable
arguments due to the quality they both provide and
are?  Is this the 'code of art' Pirsig mentioned?

Thanks,
SA

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