[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 
 
> Obviously  it is individuals doing the the defending
> of either social or intellectual values. I can't
> figure out why you think that is such an important,
> profound, or clarifying idea that warrants changing
> Pirsig's work.  There is no one who ever argued that
> individuals are not the source of ideas.

There are those who have argued that an individual is not the source of 
ideas but that they emerge magically from the culture. 

> Back to the quote...Pirsig is saying that one is
> behaving intellectually even if he is defending social
> values whereas in your reinterpretation you want to
> say that one is behaving intellectually only if he is
> defending intellectual values.

What I'm trying to say is that only individuals "behave 
intellectually," regardless of what values they are promoting or 
defending, as this site so clearly illustrates.  Societies don't 
intellectualize.

> For your intellectual level to be compatible with
> Pirsig's intellectual level you would have to say that
> one is behaving "individually" as he defends "the
> collective," and if so your "individual level" loses
> all meaning as a set of values distinct from your
> "collective values."

I don't think so. The static collective values of such institutions as 
governments, churches, schools, labor unions, the ACLU, etc. remain 
distinct from individual values.

> So even if you don't accept my insistence that
> Pirsig's levels represent 4 distinct types of patterns
> of value and instead stick to your idea of the levels
> as types of people or as the moral codes that resolve
> conflict bewteen the levels, changing the names
> muddles rather than clarifies the levels because it
> considers defending the collective as individual level
> behavior.

I see the levels as patterns of value which is the same as patterns of 
morality which is the same as patterns of moral codes. The intellectual 
level fights to preserve the moral codes of free speech, free press, 
property ownership, etc. to protect individual intellectual patterns 
from dominance by social moral codes such as "go along to get along"  
"be a team player," and "shape up or ship out," etc.
 
> Or you could just admit that what you are doing is not
> clarifying Pirsig's work but changing it, and that
> your individual level is not the same as RMP's
> intellectual level.  Then you could give your system a
> new name so it wouldn't be confused with the moq.

I don't think I'm changing Pirsig's work but making it more meaningful 
in the context of human history. 

(Platt previously)
> > I consider freedom (DQ) vs. totalitarianism (SQ) an
> > important issue for 
> > human happiness and evolution.
> 
> Steve:
> 
> Again you missed the point. Your replacement of
> individual for intellectual and collective for social
> is not a dynamic versus static issue. You are just
> renaming the static levels.
> 
> My point is that support for your side of the economic
> debate is actually one of dynamic versus static
> whereas you seem to be trying to shift the terms to
> better argue it on a static versus static level.  It
> doesn't seem necessary to change the static levels to
> make your case since Pirsig says that socialism as an
> intellectually guided economy is more intellectual but
> less dynamic than capitalism.

First, here's Pirsig's description of DQ: "It contains no pattern of 
fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and 
its only perceived evil is static quality itself -- any pattern of one-
sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free 
force of life." (Lila, 9) Second, he described human rights such as 
free speech, free press, freedom of religion, etc. as ". . . moral 
codes that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the 
social order" (Lila, 13)  Putting 1) and 2) together you have Dynamic 
freedom promoted and defended by the intellectual level over the one-
sided fixed values of the static social level. That's why I say the 
intellectual level vs the social level is indeed a "dynamic vs. static 
issue." 

The social  level is not interested in freedom. It's highest value is 
conformity. It is the intellectual level that says "No" to conformity 
and sets us free to pursue DQ as each of us, individually, understands 
and responds to DQ's "only good" which happens to be -- surprise, 
surprise -- freedom.

This is not to say the social level --- with its institutions of the  
military and the police -- is not important. They are vital to protect 
freedom loving individuals occupying the intellectual level from 
terrorists and other biological criminals.

But that's another kettle of fish to fry.

Regards,
Platt