[MD] Principled Person Level

[Platt Holden]

PH
> > 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.
 
Gene 
> 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.

So if I refer to a photon itself you assume I claim it has a self like 
a human being has a self? Far out. As for my example being flawed, just 
your saying so doesn't make it so.

PH
> > Are you saying Pirsig didn't write "dissipation of these values?" and
> > "self- discipline?"
 
Gene 
> 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.

Just your saying so doesn't make it so Geneman.

Gene
> 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.

When both sides are presented, one has what one needs to make a fair 
judgment, as in a jury trial. 

PH
> > 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 philosophy you can't separate the
> > individual from the levels, you can't  separate ideas from
> > individuals.

Gene 
> 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.
 
Makes good sense to me. Lots of things flit in an out of existence, 
like quantum particles.