[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[SA to Platt]
Platt, I am assuming you support a universal moral order.  Yet, you say cells
and quantum particles do not know the version of Dq definition going around
that states DQ is an inclination towards what is better.  That is a moral
choice.

[Arlo]
Yes, DQ is an inclination towards "what is better". For the atom, for the cell,
for the cat, and for Platt.

I can only assume Platt's distortion of Pirsig is in this case to "prove" the
Divinity of Man in the Cosmos. You see, here were all these animals responding
to DQ, when suddenly man appeared, and DQ went "Ah, the perfect creatures, I
will now ignore the rest of all, lock everything but man into a permanent state
of static quality, so as to focus on naught but the Wonderous Man."

Poor UTOE. Before the emergence of man, his ancestors could, in fact, respond to
DQ. Then along comes Platt and the DQ force abandons poor UTOE and locks him
into a state of abject automatonism and predictability. And God gave Adam
dominion over the beasts. You see the connection, don't you?

[SA]
No matter what on any level, according to your UNIVERSAL moral order, everything
inclines towards what is better, meaning not towards what is worse.  I define
Dq is "something or nothing' undefinable.  I define Sq as "something"
definable.

[Arlo]
As does everyone who'd actually read Pirsig, I reckon.

It's actually funny (in a sad sort of way) seeing what Platt has to keep coming
up with (like "static quality is the front edge of experience", and  his cat's
behavior is "completely predictable") to justify this particular distortion.
Luckily, Pirsig makes it clear that static quality is NOT at the front edge of
experience, it comes later, after Dynamic Quality, and my cat has many moments
of unpredictable behavior, following DQ to where "it's better" for her.

Anyways, I haven't touched base with you in a while, SA. Just wanted to say
"hey" more than anything. :-) 

Arlo