[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[David Harding]

Hi Platt,

Platt Holden wrote:

"And if I've mis-characterized anyone's position, please rectify."

Yes, you've mis-understood my post.

>
> 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. 
Are you comparing my ideas to your own before you judge them or are you 
simply taking them for what they are?  It seems to me your doing a lot 
of the former and not enough of the latter.

I never said the intellectual level should be renamed the individual 
level.  I [paraphrased] said that if you wanted you could name the 
intellectual level the principled-person level but IMHO new names just 
confuse the matter.  I said that if someone wanted to be a good 
individual, that is have goodness on all the levels, then they would 
need perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, prudence and diligence.   
According to Lilas Child, Pirsig defines the individual as..

"The MOQ says it is a collection of static patterns capable of 
apprehending Dynamic Quality".

I see no reason to change this definition as IMHO it's good.  Why change 
it, when mine and Pirsigs philosophy incorporates the very same 
characteristics, every one of them, of your individual right into the 
current levels of the MOQ? If you can think of any more good 
characteristics you'd like incorporated then please tell me and I'll try 
and show you how they fit into the MOQ as Pirsig describes it. 
> 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?)
>   
What's wrong with an open field?  According to the natural order of 
things, the best philosophies outlast the bad ones.  Each person has 
their own philosophy.  The ones that are good, last.  The ones that 
aren't, don't.  So of course, Ayn Rand's philosophy qualifies.  Every 
philosophy qualifies.  It's a metaphysics. It incorporates everything.  
Because it is a Metaphysics of Quality the aspects of Ayn Rands 
philosophy that are good will stand the tests of time. The aspects that 
aren't, will not. Same with the MOQ and anything else.

I look forward to your reply.

Cheers,

David.