[MD] Is the intellectual level individual?

[Platt Holden]

Hello J.C.B.

If I had to sum up your argument I would choose the following from your 
post:

> Is expressing intellectual thought any more individual then expressing a
> biological desire, or a social conviction?

I would answer, "Yes, of course." Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a 
lot more individual than his feeling hungry or voting for Roosevelt. 
What am I missing?

Sincerely, 
Platt
  

> Hello Platt and all, of the few posts that I have read over the past
> month, I keep running into the valuation that people view the
> intellectual level, as individualistic. (Have I jumped the gun here as
> per usual?)
> 
> If you take the coperician revolution, at first the new value has held
> by Copernicus alone, but he put forth his new intellectual pattern of
> value, was branded and killed by the predominant social patterns of
> value, but the values he created lived on and grew after his death. Now,
> the sun is viewed as the center of our solar system, it has become an
> established intellectual pattern of value. Is this an individual 
> intellectual pattern of value, held by many, or a more generalised
> intellectual pattern of value. (Leaning towards a Platonic, intellectual
> in itself here. But with the beauty of an undefined source of all,
> Quality, as such, there are no things in themselves. (Praise be Pirsig.)
> Though the ego of every being will argue otherwise, "I am an
> individual." -This is me, this is mine, I want this, you do that, etc.
> 
> 1+1=2 is an old intellectual pattern of value, which when taught, raises
> all involved to the intellectual level. Now are people who use 1+1=2,
> being just individuals, or are they a complex pattern of values,
> inroganic and up, perpetuating static patterns of value, or mu?
> 
> When on the rare occassion I find myself being intellectual, the
> intelectual activity is very consuming and the other levels loose
> importance, as if sinking deeper. In conversation I stop focusing on the
> person I am trying to connect to and intellectually hold the object I am
> talking about. I do not view this as individual nor non individual, more
> of a MU. The intellectual activity still requires all the other levels
> to be functioning, just relegated in my conscious awareness.
> 
> All the levels want to grow, all the levels have to fight for their own
> self interest, all higher levels depend on those below, as such the
> higher up the ladder the less individualistic, in a sense. On the other
> hand there is a greater use of energy the higher up the evolutionary
> ladder you go. It becomes rarer and thus stands out more, so can be
> discerned more, thus being labeled and experienced as a kind of
> individuality. Without discernment there would be no individual things.
> 
> Is expressing intellectual thought any more individual then expressing a
> biological desire, or a social conviction?
> 
> Does the holder of intellectual valuations not want to spread those
> valuations. This can be described as egoic or alturistic. Egocic in that
> it has a source, the mind of the thinker, and the sensation of power
> when the ego attaches itself to when the intellectual pattern of value
> held in the mind is understood by the mind of another. Equally,
> alturistic, in that if the valuation has  quality to whatever extent, it
> raises and shares out the quality to those who adopt the value.
> 
> As such I disagree with the intellectual level, as with any level, being
> labeled individual.
> 
> Yours sincerly J C B.