[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Steve Peterson <vincentedisonluther at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hi Dan, Gene,
>
>Gene already responded to you and said pretty much what I would have wanted 
>to say. I'm still not sure where you are coming from on this.  I seem to 
>have annoyed you, and I'm not sure why.

Hi Steve

Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry if you think that you annoyed me - I 
assure you that is not the case. I've actually spent a good deal of time 
answering you. If I were annoyed I wouldn't bother, believe me. I've rather 
enjoyed our discussion. If I seem annoyed at times it just means I'm 
wrestling with difficult answers, difficult for me anyhow.

>
>Can you summarize for me what your understanding of Platt's intellectual 
>level is so that I can know what it is you are defending?

Well, I'm not really defending Platt's idea as being right vs. the MOQ being 
wrong. I'm saying that in a certain context a person could say both ideas 
are right. The context depends of course on expanding our point of view 
rather than narrowing it as we of the Western culture have been taught to 
do.

I don't think Platt is saying anything all that different than what Mr. 
Pirsig is saying. It all boils down to preference I should think. Use the 
conventions that work for you.

>Dan:
>
>I think that the MOQ would say the concept of the individual is an
>intellectual pattern of value just as the concept of the intellectual level
>is an intellectual pattern of value.
>
>Please provide evidence where the MOQ says we can separate any part of the 
>individual and contain said part in the intellectual level.
>
>Steve:
>
>Sure, Note 140. "The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four 
>parts:
>inorganic, biological, social and intellectual."

Yes this is a good example (thank you) of dividing the individual, which I 
really don't have a problem with. It is containing the division in the 
intellectual level that I have problems with.

>
>
>Dan:
>
>Okay. Now we're getting to it. So you want to impose restictions on what we 
>can think and write about the MOQ. And (of course) you (who else) will be 
>the authority who decrees what works and what doesn't.
>Steve:
>Are you saying that no one should speak up when someone has got it all 
>wrong about the MOQ and what it means?

Not at all. This is a discussiion group after all. It appeared (to me) that 
the way you put things you would rather Platt not have his say-so, however. 
Perhaps that's my mistake.

>
>I don't know what sorts of restrictions you think I could possibly impose 
>on anybody. If you've been following this discussion, you should know that 
>I have been using the writings of RMP to demonstrate that Platt is way off 
>on his interpretation of the MOQ. I haven't been saying that I am somehow 
>an authority on the subject and everyone should just take my word for it.

And I am certainly no authority on the MOQ either. Still I think it is 
better to explore the MOQ with an open mind.

>
>
>
> >Steve:
> >I wonder if you really know what Platt is saying if you think that his
> >philosophy is not inconsistent with the MOQ.
>
>Dan:
>
>I thought he said that the individual and the intellectual level can be
>viewed as the same. That's what we're talking about. Right? I'm not for 
>sure but I really hope it is.
>
>Steve:
>
>Platt replaces the intellectual level with the individual level and the 
>social level with the collective level, but what is the individual level as 
>you see it?

Whatever the MOQ says it is.

>If for you and Platt, individual is just a synonym for intellectual I would 
>find that strange but it wouldn't indicate a problem with interpreting the 
>MOQ. But Platt describes the individual level as something quite different 
>than the intellectual level...

The way I understand it, Platt is saying the individual is granted autonomy 
by the grace of the intellect and without the intellect, the individual 
would not exist. Still, replacing the name of the intellectual level (as 
Platt suggests) seems quite a drastic step. I think the MOQ is fine just the 
way Robert Pirsig formulated it.

>Steve:
> >Platt's individual level as he defines it is about the Victorian code of
> >craftsmanship and labor, honor, self-discipline, honesty, thrift, 
>optimism,
> >self-reliance, hard work, personal responsibility, self-discipline,
> >individual initiative, commitment to excellence,
> >delayed gratification, honor of achievement--I'm not making this up.
> >These are all things that Platt says define the individual level for 
>Platt.
> >Also, the individual level is further defined by Platt as being in
> >opposition to environmentalism, tolerance, multiculturalism, and anything
> >else that annoys Platt about liberals. Basically, Platt's SOLWAQI amounts
> >to a list of things he likes and doen't like.
>
>Dan:
>
>And you don't like Platt's idea, right?
>
>Steve:
>
>Of course not. What's your point?

How is your disliking his idea different from Platt liking it?

>
>The question is, is the above what you think Pirsig is talking about when 
>he talks about the intellectual level? Or is the Victorian code actually 
>used to describe social values?

Both.

>
>
>Dan:
>
>I guess I didn't really need Mr. Pirsig to define the intellectual level.
>When I read LILA I knew what he meant. The question was included in LILA'S
>CHILD as  the definitions of the levels came up as discussion topics early
>on in the old Lila Squad archives. I remember feeling silly when Paul 
>Turner
>wrote Robert Pirsig a letter questioning the definition of the intellectual
>level in the MOQ. Silly that I didn't question it. But the more I thought
>about it, the more I realized I wasn't the one being silly.
>
>Steve:
>Is the above description of Platt's individual level anything like Pirsig's 
>definition of the intellectual level that he gave in the letter or in LC?

Yes. Only the individual can manipulate symbols which stand for experience.

>
> >Dan said to Ant:
> >“a human being is "self" aware but only after growing to a certain age,
> >biologically, socially, and intellectually. What does this mean? It 
>appears
> >that only when we intellectualize the self, do we become self-aware. 
>Would
> >you agree?
> >
> >Steve:
> >I agree. "The self" is an intellectual pattern, contained within the
> >set of all patterns of thought known as the intellectual level. The
> >individual is not the definition of the intellectual level. The
> >intellectual level contains part of the individual.
>
>Dan:
>
>You may want to re-think the above passage.
>
>Steve:
>I don't see what is wrong with it. Can you explain?

Our concept of "self" is made up of all four levels plus undefined Dynamic 
Quality. So when you say the "self" is contained, your statement seems to 
ignore Dynamic Quality which cannot be contained. Not even part of "it".

Thank you for your comment,

Dan