[MD] Patterns

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo had asked]
According the MOQ, the intellectual level originated out the social 
level. In your interpretation, kindly point me to a time when 
"societies" existed but "individuals" did not.

[Platt expected weasel]
The MOQ speaks of moral not reified levels.

[Arlo]
No. The MOQ is very clear in that we can easily point to a time when 
inorganic patterns existed but biological ones did not. We can also 
point to a time when biological patterns existed but social ones did 
not. Similarly, following my statements we can point to a time when 
social patterns existed but intellect patterns did not. In your 
distortion of the MOQ, this breaks down, but rather than admit this 
you choose to use the same old despicable rhetorical tricks. 
Expected, but sad nonetheless.

So, Platt, according to your little distortion there should be a time 
when we could say that society existed but individuals did not. When 
was this? When did "individuals", if they are the intellectual level, 
appear out of these societies? And what compromised the societies before this?

Do I expect answers? No. You'll do what you always do when confronted 
with the idiocy of your position, start tossing out inane rhetoric in 
the hopes of obscuring your inability to even defend your own proclamations.

[Arlo had said]
And I point out that there is no "enemy" in Pirsig's 
words, "our intellectual description is always culturally derived". 
Where is the "great battle" against society in that?

[Platt]
See the story of the brujo and Pirsig's description of contrarians.

[Arlo]
This is a description of static versus Dynamic qualities, not of 
"intellect" versus "society". In this story, Pirsig is talking about 
the tension between static and Dynamic forces within the social 
level. And because of this inter-social tension, social levels are 
able to evolve. This is what the Brujo story was about.


[Platt]
If you choose to ignore parts of the MOQ, that's your problem, not mine.

[Arlo]
See that's funny. Because I don't ignore anything, indeed I take 
Pirsig's words in total and in context. You on the other hand ignore 
large segments of Pirsig's writings in a effort to twist the MOQ into 
some Randian apologist doctrine. So your Pee-Wee here simple doesn't 
work. But nice try.