[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, David H., Ant, Case, Sojosoniq, All:

Very interesting set of responses so far.

Case places principled personal values at the social level because they 
depend on "shared history." (That would also seem to apply to the 
intellectual level, so the distinction between the two levels is 
unclear.)

Sojosoniq comes right out to say there should be no distinction between 
between intellectual and social levels. "There's no need for an 
intellectual level if everything is social anyway." (Looks like Case 
and Sojosoniq might find common grounds for agreement.) 

Steve places principled personal values squarely in the social level 
because "they are values that hold society together." (Steve also 
points out there are values that hold ideas together and values that 
govern the manipulation of symbols, but these are not revealed. Perhaps 
he is thinking of Pirsig's criteria of truth. This alone would make for 
an interesting discussion.)

Ant says the values of a principled person are "social concerns," and 
introduces something which may come as a surprise, namely, "To be moral 
in Pirsig's moral hierarchy is primarily to be an artist (of life e.g. 
craftsmanship.)" He then goes on to mention specific individuals who 
meet this high standard, Charlie Chaplin, da Vinci, as opposed to 
"charlatans who go around saying they are 'artists.'" (Pirsig cited 
craftsmanship as a Victorian virtue, so I'm surprised Ant would chose 
that as a identifying value of a highly moral individual. Also I would 
like to know the criteria for distinguishing a legitimate artist from a 
charlatan.) 

David H. says, "Thus to put it very plainly the level of the principled 
person is the intellectual level." He describes such as person as one 
"who makes his decisions based on philosophy rather than biological 
whims and impulses, or even from the lure of celebrity and the social 
level." Moreover, David says some of the traits I listed such as 
perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, prudence and diligence 
"aren't just Victorian traits but traits of a good MOQ individual!" 
(That I agree with David is rather obvious from my suggestion to rename 
the intellectual level the individual level. I'm concerned, however, 
that citing philosophy as the basis for making decisions leaves a 
rather wide open field, depending on what philosophy one happens to 
choose, or have chosen for him. Would Ayn Rand's philosophy qualify?)

Of course, this just briefly highlights the responses. Each was 
presented thoughtfully and covered ground that this brief summary 
necessarily omits. Thanks to one and all, and I hope others yet to be 
heard from will chime in. And if I've mis-characterized anyone's 
position, please rectify.

Regards,
Platt