[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[craigerb at comcast.net]

Some require fish on Friday,
I prefer Ham Priday.

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> 

> 
> 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 
> 
> 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/