[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[Andre Broersen]

Joe to Andre and all:

Individuality? participates in all those levels.

Indeed, ?individuality? trumps DQ in every case where evolution proposes a
different individual level in existence.  The individual exists.  DQ exists
in the individual.  I was flabbergasted at the dependent role that DQ plays
to ?individuality?.  There is no way of knowing DQ apart from the
?individual?.

I don?t expect this is a surprising development, but it sure was a surprise
to me.

Andre:
Hey Joe. Yes, such an awareness, or rather 'realization' can be quite surprising
especially when you put it in the context of Ham's 'essence'.

We can argue about this 'till dawn comes but I would suggest that the MoQ has a slightly
different slant on this. The MoQ simply suggests that DQ does not 'depend' on individuality.

Who contains what? DQ 'has' us. Remember the central question of LILA? Does Lila have Quality?
The answer is 'mu'. Quality has Lila.

Ham plays on the importance of the individual (using his 'essence' as Platt uses the MoQ) to justify
the exploitation of this concept of individuality for political/economic purposes.

It simply is to justify the static social patterns of value they firmly believe in.

Do not be fooled by this.

Mr. Pirsig certainly isn't.

And don't be fooled by me.

Andre