[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

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

[Arlo]
That's right. Because the dichotomy is false. 

[Platt]
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:

[Arlo]
You are proposing, if I understand, that once a "higher moral level" emerges,
then the previous level cements completely, i.e. is no longer able to respond
to DQ.

And, in the quote you refer to, interestingly, you've changed what Pirsig
actually says. He says "only a living being", not "only a human being". Isn't
your cat a "living being"? Viewed from its own level, is not an amoeba a
"living being"?

Moreso, if the inorganic and biological levels have ceased being able to respond
to DQ, why did this happen? Why should "individuals" on these levels "lose"
their ability to respond to DQ?

At any rate, it is clear that Dynamic Quality is not equated with any of the
four static levels of quality. Pirsig says of DQ, "It is value that cannot be
contained by static patterns." That the intellectual level is also a static
level, Pirsig makes clear by saying, "In this plain of understanding static
patterns of value are divided into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological
patterns, social patterns and intellectual patterns."

Your response to my previous post cleverly veered away from this. But I think
Pirsig is quite clear here. "Dynamic v. static" is in no way akin to
"intellectual v. social". To attempt to pervert Pirsig in this way, is merely
more Party Propaganda.

Arlo