[MD] The Individual Level

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Arlo's proposed definition based on ZMM]
A "Quality principled person" is someone who respects the oneness of life. S/he
is patient, egoless and possesses a "beginner's mind". S/he holds her values
flexibley, and can be seen as filled with gumption. S/he dislikes
specialization, and is an excellect all-arounder. In her/his work, she
demonstrates no division between art and practice, and her/his work can be seen
as possessing beauty because of their unselfconscious way of looking at things.

[Platt]
Yours is a definition of a liberal Hippie...

[Arlo]
You mean Pirsig?

[Platt]
... that complete ignores many aspects of Pirsig's principled person, including
of course the "Victorian" traits...

[Arlo]
The "Victorian" traits are social level. The above "Quality Principled Person"
goes beyond S/O dualism, and static level patterns, and looks at the person
directly in contact with Quality. I wonder why YOU ignore THIS.

As such, I don't dispute the value of the Victorian social level morals you've
put out. What I dispute is your politically-motivated charade to elevate them
to Superior Grandeur within the MOQ. Indeed, in my last post I had said that
"honesty" and "integrity" are high quality social level morals that, I'd agree,
foster the emergence of higher quality intellectual patterns, such as
"calculus". But of course, you've ignored this too, preferring instead to argue
exclusively for Rigelian Dominance in the MOQ.

[Platt]
... of optimism, belief in the future, codes of craftsmanship and labor and
thrift and self-discipline.

[Arlo]
As I said, likely all high quality social level morals. With the exception of
the "code of craftsmanship", which if you mean it as Pirsig describes it
throughout ZMM, is already a part of my QPP. (In her/his work, she demonstrates
no division between art and practice, and her/his work can be seen as
possessing beauty because of their unselfconscious way of looking at things.)

[Platt]
But there's much more, like destroying destructive biological patterns with
"complete moral ruthlessness," and seeking a place "to be alone and quiet and
inconspicuous." But you ignore all these because they don't fit the liberal
ideal of sacrificing self for others in a dreamworld of loving, caring and
sharing.

[Arlo]
No. Again, I went right for the source, a person in touch with Quality. Arete.
Gumption. You can call them "hippy ideals", but again anything that disagrees
with The Party gets so labeled, and it becomes a little ridiculous to hear you
call everything Pirsig wrote about arete and gumption "hippy mush", but trumpet
"moral ruthlessness" as The Holy Grail. And you talk about ME ignoring things.
Tell you what, I'll give you a point there for gall.

Being a "Quality Principled Person", someone in touch with Quality, is more
important than being some morally righteous Victorian who thinks His social
level morals make him Morally Superior. That's not to say that there are not
important social morals, but they are what they are... social morals. "Honesty"
will not serve you well when your spouse asks "Did I gain weight?" Nor will it
make you a hero for posting honest but dangerous information online (the NYT
was "honest", weren't they?). These "social morals" must be weighed in "social
context", and applied as is Good, something that a Quality Principled Person
would be able to figure out.