[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Dan,
[Steve said]
>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?

[Dan said]
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. 

[Steve]
My point has not been that Platt is wrong. I just don't think his ideas are consistent with the MOQ.


[Dan said]
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.
[Steve]
Platt is saying some things that are very different. Pirsig described Voctorians in order to explain what the social level is and Platt is saying that Victorian values are the Individual level. 


>Steve:
>
>Sure, Note 140. "The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four 
>parts:
>inorganic, biological, social and intellectual."

[Dan]
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.

[Steve]
I'm not sure what you mean. All such divisions are intellectual, but I only include the intellectual part (his thought patterns) of the individual in the intellectual level.


>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?

[Dan}
Whatever the MOQ says it is.

[Steve]
But the MOQ doesn't have an individual level.

[Dan]
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]
Actually, he doesn't say that the individual doesn't exist without intellect. He says that intellect only exists because of individuals. But I think that when you say it is the other way around you are more consistent with what Pirsig had to say about it. I'm thinking of his analysis of Descarte's "I think therefore I am" for example.

But then Platt takes a step beyond that reversal of Pirsig. He then further argues that since Intellect belongs to individuals the fourth level is really the individual level where the Victorian morality and a morality of self-reliance live rather than an intellectual level of values that govern the manipulation of symbols.


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

[Steve]
Because I'm right and he is wrong. :-)

But seriously, because my ideas about the MOQ are supported by the writings of RMP and his are contradicted by them.

It's not a matter of whether Platt and I like the same things. For the most part we agree on what values are good to have. The difference is that he thinks that any value worth holdiong must be a fourth level value.


>[Steve]
>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?

[Dan]
Both.

[Steve]
I don't understand your answer. Are you saying that 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, etc. describe both the social and intellectual levels.


>
>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?

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

[Steve]
I think it goes without saying that human brains are doing the manipulating. I was asking if Pirsig's definition of intellect has to do with
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, etc.


Regards,
Steve

 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.