[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> See, with you guys it is always absolutely NEVER one or the other.
> 
> [Arlo]
> That's right. Because the dichotomy is false. 

Glad to see you invoking an absolute, proving my point.
 
> [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]
> 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"?

Check the context of Pirsig's statement which you deliberately omitted. 
He is obviously referring to human beings.

> 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?

As you know, the social and intellectual levels consist solely of human 
beings. My individual level is similarly restricted.

> 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."

He speaks of only human beings as being capable of responding to DQ.

> 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."

That doesn't preclude a human being's capability of responding to DQ. 

> 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.

So you say without evidence.

Platt