[MD] Is the intellectual level individual?

[ian glendinning]

JCB,

More individual yes, but not entirely individualistic.

Think of the layers of SQ as a pyramid.

Right at the top are the (intellectual) "thoughts" that maybe only one
person has ever thought, at the bottom are all the (physical) "atoms"
in the universe. Einstein got lucky :-)

The intellectual layer has depth though, and most of it is socially /
culturally conditioned (I would say populated by memes, but some
people would get upset if I did) and it evolves just like all the
other layers do, as intellectual thoughts are shared.

Ian

On 5/24/06, Joseph Bromley <bharhumbug at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
> 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>