[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve,

[Steve]
> > Here are some of the things that Pirsig has said about the
> > intellectual level where I don't think it would make any sense to
> > substitute "individual" for "intellectual":
> 
> Platt:
> "Here are my interpretations of what Pirsig said that led me to the
> individual level conclusion:"
> 
> > 'After the beginning of history inorganic, biological, social and
> > intellectual patterns are found existing together in the same person.
> > I think the conflicts mentioned here are intellectual conflicts in
> > which one side clings to an intellectual justification of existing
> > social patterns and the other side intellectually opposes the existing
> > social patterns. A social pattern which would be unaware of the next
> > higher level would be found among prehistoric people and the higher
> > primates when they exhibit social learning that is not genetically
> > hard-wired but yet is not symbolic.'
> 
> Platt: ""Intellectual justification" implies thinking by individuals vs.
> social patterns."
> 
> Steve: Pirsig is saying that whether one is verbally defending a social
> pattern or an intellectual pattern he is still participating in
> intellectual patterns.In other words, he doesn't want to say that only
> people defending intellectual patterns are participating in intellectual
> patterns whereas in your formulation, only those defending individuals
> over the collective are individual level people. You and Pirsig are not
> talking about the same thing.

See your first sentence -- "whether one . . ." -- an individual. 

> Platt: "As for my emphasis on the individual being just a "conservative
> perspective," I thought it was liberals who champion individual rights
> such as free speech, freedom of the press, trial by jury, etc. Where
> have I gone wrong?"
> 
> Steve: I guess I can't see why else you would want to rename the
> intellectual level other than to make capitalism appear intellectual and
> socialism appear social level. I think Pirsig said something like the
> moral superiority claim of socialism is in the fact that socialism is
> the idea of an intellectually guided society whereas the moral
> superiority claim of capitalism is it's openness to dynamic quality. I
> guessed that you were putting your economic theory dispute with liberals
> on a social versus intellectual plane when it is actually a
> dynamic-static issue. But you can say best what you intent is. Why is it
> so important to change Pirsig's names for the levels?

I consider freedom (DQ) vs. totalitarianism (SQ) an important issue for 
human happiness and evolution.

Regards, 
Platt