[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Platt Holden]

Hi David H.,

> 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.

Nor did I say you did. I said we agreed the place for a principled 
person is the intellectual 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.

I see no reason either.

>  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.

That's the problem. Pirsig doesn't specifically incorporate the 
characteristics of perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, self-
reliance, etc. into the MOQ. I understood you to say these 
characteristics are intellectual level patterns, e.g., "Thus to put it 
very plainly the level of the principled person is the intellectual 
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?

> What's wrong with an open field? 

Because then anything goes, depending on what philosophy one chooses to 
follow. Result. social chaos. 

> 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.

In the meantime, what criteria does one use to choose a "good" 
philosophy? As some have argued here, a philosophy like radical Islam  
is considered by its practitioners. 

Regards,
Platt