[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Ham Priday]

Platt, Gene, Steve, Michael, Arlo --

I've been sitting out this discussion, waiting to see how you folks would
resolve it.  To date I have counted over 50 posts on this subject in the
last four days, which clearly demonstrates to me the futility of trying to
"level" existence -- especially human existence.

Gene finally conceded to Platt that laws (concepts) begin with the
individual, but felt compelled to qualify it with "At First":


> I agree that intellectual patterns begin in an individual At First.
> But as soon as they start spreading those ideas, then a collective
> has that idea.  It seems clear that Intellect isn't purely individual.

Even Arlo's quasi-concession on "beliefs" was offered with a Collective
caveat:

> Believing or disbelieving, I'd go so far as to say, ARE intellectual
> level activities. But since our understanding of "it" is always
> symbolically mediated (except in the pre-intellectual, aesthetic),
> the moment we think about inorganic, biological or social patterns
> we are in the realm of intellectual level activity, and we can in fact
> believe or disbelieve how we've codified these patterns we experience.

Platt, isn't it apparent to you by now that the intellect of the MD is bound
to the Collective?  The individual accounts for nothing; it is the Almighty
Collective that moves everything toward "the better", thereby earning its
place in the Quality heirarchy.  Until something is registered in the
Collective it has no value.

As one who has problems with the logic of dividing Quality into
differentiated levels, I have to ask why we need them.  The actualized world
is a relational system that is experienced as phenomena demarcated by gaps,
contradictions, and differences.  Isn't that differentiated enough?  Must we
now add arbitrary levels to further parse it?   Where does that take us?
Trying to achieve a metaphysical "fusing" of levels doesn't lead to an
undivided source, nor does it advance our wisdom or understanding.

Gentlemen, I submit to you that the cognizant human individual is the
subjective core of existence.  It is man's experience and intellect that
constructs existence.  As Protagoras stated back in the 5th century B.C.,
"Man is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are and
of the non-existence of things that are not."  Frankly, there's more wisdom
in that single statement than in all the works of Mr. Prisig.

A "collective" has no awareness of its own; it doesn't think, sense, or
create.  It accounts for nothing, except for the power that individuals
consign to it.  If Value is the core of individual awareness -- including
Intelligence, Truth and Quality -- then the fundamental relation of
existence is between the infinitesimal perspective of the individual and the
infinite Essence of the Absolute Source.

All of this leveling sophistry is leading nowhere.  It continues to amaze me
to what lengths intelligent people will go in order to make the
life-experience something that it isn't.

But, hey, I don't want to be a party-pooper.  Please continue.  I don't know
what it will prove, but maybe you'll eventually succeed in getting all the
properties of man set at their "indisputably correct" levels.

Good luck,
--Ham