[MD] Principled Person Level

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,
Although my proposal to rename the MOQ's intellectual level the 
individual level has been met with a measure of mild reproof, a place 
to put personal moral character traits such as Pirsig used to describe 
Victorians who "really built 20th century America" (codes of 
craftsmanship, labor, thrift and self-discipline) appears to be lacking 
in the Pirsig's moral hierarchy.

It seems passing strange that in a book devoted to an Inquiry into 
Morals precious little mention is made of the patterns of individual 
moral self-regulation such as perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, 
prudence, diligence, and other  personal character traits that govern 
one's response to stimuli according to values and principles rather 
than appetites, urges, whims and impulses.
In other words, at what level do you insert a pattern of morally 
principled person? 

Steve:

You already know my opinion: these are social level values. You used to think of social quality as the value that holds a society together. Denying such biological quality as appetites, urges, whims, and impulses is what the social-biological code is all about. Labor, thrift, honor, self-discipline, courage, honesty, etc. may be values that self-regulating individual holds, but they are still social values. They are values that hold society together in contrast to intellectual values which are values that hold ideas together.

Platt:
If you answer "the social level" you are buying into the common notion 
that all morality is social and always involves other people, i.e., no 
morality required by someone marooned alone on a desert island.

Steve:
I'm not buying into that common notion. All morality is not social, but just about everything that people commonly think of as morality is. 

RMP from Lila:
"What is today conventionally called "morality" covers only one of these
sets of moral codes, the social-biological code."

So anything that would conventionally fall under the heading "morality" like all the things you listed, are part of this social-biological code.

The MOQ asks us to think of the morality of 1+1=2 over 1+1=5. That is right and wrong on the intellectual level, but people don't generally think of truth as a value. The value that governs the manipulation of symbols is qualitatively different than the value that governs the self-disciplined person. This self-discpline is what the Giant demands of it's laborers for productive participation. The Giant thrives while the people it consumes think that they are regulating themselves as morally principled people.

Platt:
Without an individual 
level containing the pattern of a principled person, what criteria do 
we use to say a principled person is high quality?    


Steve:
As you know, I think you are making a huge and fundamental error in thinking of the levels as containers for different kinds of poeple rather than as types of patterns of value. A single level doesn't contain a person when each person is thought of as a collection of patterns of all four types. You can look at what types of patterns dominate a given person, but the idea of trying to find a level that contains the pattern of a principled person is doomed from the start because that's just not what the levels are.


Regards,
Steve



 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.