[MD] The Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Publishing information that helps bilogical killers is a social pattern
> called treason.
> 
> [Arlo]
> But they were "honest". That's my point. "Honesty" is a social level
> moral that must be weighed in depending on the social context

I gave you an example from Pirsig about intellectual level honesty 
which you chose to ignore -- the scientist faking data. But if you deny 
there is such a thing as intellectual honesty, I wouldn't be greatly 
surprised. 

> Like
> telling your spouse s/he hasn't gained weight, when that is not really
> "honest".

I would call that "keeping peace in the family" honesty. :-)

> I'm with you more than not on the NYT, by the way. I'm not
> sure I saw eminent danger to the public. So long as Congress was briefed
> and approved, the actions were likely legit, and the NYT made a grievous
> error. Had Congress NOT been briefed, then the potential threat of the
> exposure was worth it. Unaccountable executive power is a greater
> threat, no matter who is the president.

We agree. But why not charge the NYT with treason and penalize them 
according to the law?

> [Arlo]
> I think we should all strive to be a QPP, wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't say. 

> Isn't that
> more valuable a quest than proclaiming self-righteous superiority based
> on blind adherence to a few Victorian social morals?

What do they call questions like "Have you stop beating your wife?"

> But my point was that someone who was Quality-Principled would know when
> to apply particular social morals, and when to NOT apply them. Or at the
> least, they wouldn't base their ego on some self-righteous adherence to
> static social level morals.

Seems to me your QPP is about as self-righteous as they come. At least
as you seem to define yourself as being one.

> I'm also curious why you think the QPP denies "seeking a place "to be
> alone and quiet and inconspicuous"? I don't personally recall this from
> Pirsig, but I find no contradiction between the QPP and this value.
> Indeed, if you can cite for me where Pirsig mentions this as a trait of
> someone in touch with Quality, I'll be glad to amend my definition.

See Chap. 30 of Lila. Incidentally, how about adding that your QPP is a 
free marketeer?

> So, I'm going to repost this again, and ask you specifically where you
> feel it diverges from Pirsig. Specifically, which of these qualities do
> you feel is "liberal"?

OK, I'll bite.
 
> [Arlo's proposed definition based on ZMM]
> A "Quality principled person" is someone who respects the oneness of
> life.

We're all one, Kumbaya. Liberal.

>S/he is patient, egoless and possesses a "beginner's mind".

Patience is an intellectual level virtue. Egoless is liberal. 
Beginner's mind I suppose is a mind like a child. Liberals play the 
children card at the drop of a hat, always "saving" them with other 
people's money.  

> S/he
> holds her values flexibley, and can be seen as filled with gumption.

Value flexibility is definitely liberal, sticking a finger in the 
political wind to see which way its blowing. Gumption is an 
quintessential intellectual level trait right out of the Victorian era. 

> S/he dislikes specialization, and is an excellect all-arounder.
Sounds like "blowin' in the wind." Liberal.

> 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.

Ah, craftsmanship. An intellectual virtue.

So we come up with a mixture of traits, but by and large, liberal in 
its feel-good generalities. Personally I like the free-market, mind 
your own business, take no prisoners Pirsig.