[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Dan, 

Platt previously
> >If I understand you correctly you side with the Idealists who believe
> >the existence of a separate world from our perceptions is an illusion.

Dan 
> I'll side with the MOQ and say that idealism is a high quality idea.

Pirsig says in LC "However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ 
says  that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea." 
The MOQ transcends both SOM idealism and SOM materialism, or as Pirsig 
put it, " . . . both of which have been left behind by the MOQ"   

> >I agree with you that the divisions required by intellectualization are
> >indeed illusory, except that in my understanding of Quality there
> >appears to exist not only a creative force (DQ) but a survival force
> >(static Quality). In Pirsig's words: "Without Dynamic Quality the
> >organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last.
> >Both are needed." (Lila, 11)
> >
> >Since from an MOQ perspective "need" is a "value" I'd suggest the
> >illusions we need to survive -- to fulfill the "lasting" aspect of
> >Quality -- are quite unlike the entertaining illusions of a magician,
> >the former being far more valuable than the latter.

> Perhaps I offered a weak analogy yet I thought it helped shed light on
> what I am saying. Of course there is a range of values from low to high.

No doubt about values ranging from ugly to beautiful.

> >Giving the value of survival,  ignorance of the illusion of "dependence
> >on causes and conditions" is bliss. And since such ignorance seems to
> >have little adverse effect in a world where survival (static Quality)
> >is such an important part of the game, perhaps ignoring our ignorance,
> >just as we tend to ignore the mystics view that thought obscures
> >reality, is the better way.
 
> If we really had to worry about survival, would we be talking here? I
> think not. So while I will grant you that survival is of value, it seems
> quite ludicrous to keep one's head in the sands of ignorance when
> conditions allow for something better.

I don't get the connection between worry about survival and our talking 
here. The static levels continue to vie for dominance as we speak with 
both the social level of constitutional democracy and the intellectual 
level of individual rights being challenged.  

> >Having said that, your answer to my question about "first cause"
> >remains valid because no matter what answer is given, it has no bearing
> >on our valuing an orderly world and a long life.
> >
> >Or have I missed your point entirely?
 
> Today I read a science article about how on account of a bulge in it,
> researchers are postulating that the moon once orbited the earth not in
> a circular orbit as now but rather in an elongated elliptical fashion,
> coming much closer to earth at times and receding much further away. I
> was particularly struck by this statement:
> 
> "That would make the Moon especially dramatic viewed from the lifeless
> Earth of 4.3 billion years ago."
> 
> Would anyone believe that an intelligent person wrote this piece of
> nonsense? If the earth was lifeless, how could anyone or anything be
> viewing the moon? Yet people go on believing what they want to believe.
> Ignorance has a direct bearing on our orderly world, I should think. But
> as always I could be wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a sign of ignorance to imagine what if 
might have been like if such and such were the case. But, I agree that 
people believe what they feel good believing, including me. As for an 
orderly world, the static order inherent in the inorganic and 
biological levels will remain so regardless of our knowledge or 
ignorance. The ignorance of King Canute's courtiers could not hold the 
tide back from the king's feet. And although I am hopelessly ignorant 
of the science behind gravity, air and water I find their static values 
most conducive to my existence and survival. :-)

Regards,
Platt