[MD] Principled Person Level

[Gene M]

> > So you're saying photons have a self? An interesting tact for you to
> take,
> > but sure! I'll agree with that.
>
> Are you saying that a photon is aware of itself? I said I doubt a photon
> cares
> about his fellow photons precisely because a photon doesn't "care" about
> anything.
> Dynamic morality doesn't apply to that level or to the next level up. Both
> are static levels whose values are forever trapped in the laws of Nature.


Of course not! But if you're gonna use the word self in conjunction with it,
you've got to expect someone to assume you're claiming it Has a self to
begin with. As I see it your example is simply badly. badly flawed.

> Platt:
> >
> > > Yes, this is the most telling answer to the question. However, Pirsig
> > > laments the "dissipation of these values" (optimism, belief in the
> > > future, their codes of craftsmanship and labor and thrift and self-
> > > discipline), not only acknowledging the existence of a "self" but also
> > > suggesting the nation would do well to focus on recapturing such
> values
> > > if it is to reverse its current trend of slouching towards Gomorrah. I
> > > agree.
> >
> >
> > Nice job on this one platt! Not only did you make a statement and
> attribute
> > it to pirsig with no back-up, but then it conveniently ended up proving
> your
> > point! That was certainly a lucky turn of events.
>
> Are you saying Pirsig didn't write "dissipation of these values?" and
> "self-
> discipline?"


I'm sure he also wrote: "not", "this", "is", "the", "agree" and all sorts of
other words. Doesn't mean he wrote them in the context you present them.
You're entire argument makes no sense on this point Plattman.

> Why must you always pick half a point to argue? Oh right, because it's the
> > half that proves you right.
>
> No. Because many on this sight only present half of what Pirsig said to
> prove they
> are right. I'm just providing a fair and balanced view of his thoughts.


Of course! Just like Fox News!!

You're fair and balance exactly the same way Michael Moore is. You decided
that the other side is twisting the argument with unfair quotes, so you
simply use your own unfair quotes and call it the other half of the debate.
But thereing lies the problem, it's still only half the debate! You're
essnetially arguing that since the other side is allowed to be wrong, you
should be allowed to be wrong too!

It's not fair and balanced, it's just slanted in the opposite direction of
what you feel your opponents are saying. Two angles don't make a fair
medium.

Many here are of the opinion that Victorian values of self-reliance and
> self-responsibility are social values. These were not aped from Europeans.
> They are
> distinctly American values, made permanent by American intellectual's
> elevation of
> the individual above the power of society as guaranteed by the Bill of
> Rights in the
> U.S.Constitution. As for ideas being separate from the individual, since
> you wrote
> about them and I read what you wrote, individuals are involved. Just as in
> Pirsig's
> philosphy you can't separate the individual from the levels, you can't
> separate ideas
> from individuals.


And where was my idea in between of my writing it and you reading it? Cause
I promise I forgot about it in the interim. It was nowhere of course!
Because that is the most logical answer one can come up with. Ideas exist,
then dissapear, then re-appear. Flitting in and out of nowhere.

It simply doesn't make good sense.

Platt


-Gene