[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo]
> No, just those that argue against the notion that they emerge magically
> from the individual. (See, it ALWAYS absolutely one or absolutely the
> other with you guys.)

See, with you guys it is always absolutely NEVER one or the other.

> [Arlo]
> Really? The Law of Gravity is "Dynamic Quality"? I'd say it is a static
> intellectual pattern. And lest we confuse "intellectual quality" with
> "Dynamic Quality", recall that Pirsig never claims that only human
> beings can respond to Dynamic Quality.

Ah but he said exactly that only human beings can respond to DQ. In the 
context of talking about humans and the death penalty, he wrote:

"Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought 
too. A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral 
precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a 
higher level of evolution than social patterns of value. Just as it is 
more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than a patient, so it is more 
moral for an idea to kill a society than it is for a society to kill an 
idea. And beyond that is an even more compelling reason; societies and 
thoughts and principles themselves are no more than sets of static 
patterns.These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to 
Dynamic Quality. ONLY A LIVING BEING CAN DO THAT." (Lila, 13)
(Emphasis added).

> It was, according to Pirsig, a
> response to Dynamic Quality that led the cells to discover sex. "But
> what "We" is covering up is pure quality for the cells. The cells have
> gotten to their advanced state of evolution through all this fucking and
> farting and pissing and shitting. That's quality! Particularly the
> sexual functions. 
>  From the cells' point of view sex is pure Dynamic Quality, the highest
> Good of all."

Note the past tense: "It was . . ." Now that cells have discovered sex, 
long before we came on the scene, what do you suppose will be their 
next move in response to DQ? I say cells are long past perceiving
or adjusting to DQ. Been there, done that. Along with evolutionary 
morality, the DQ response mechanism has moved on up to individual human 
beings. 

> Not to mention that this claim, if true, runs counter to your oft-posted
> rebuttal to socialism. "From a static point of view socialism is more
> moral than capitalism. It's a higher form of evolution. It [socialism]
> is an intellectually guided society, not just a society that is guided
> by mindless traditions [capitalism]." If what you say above is true,
> then socialism (intellectual level) versus capitalism (social level) is
> also a  "dynamic vs. static issue.".

Where did you ever get the idea that capitalism (free enterprise) is 
guided by mindless traditions? As Pirsig says, "A free market is a  
Dynamic institution." Doesn't sound like "mindless traditions" to me. 
Quite the opposite, socialist cities are "always dull" places precisely 
because they are rigidly controlled by mindless traditions, like 
welfare. (Note Pirsig's use of the absolute, "always.) 

Platt