[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Steve Peterson]

Hi DMB,

Long time no see. You look good. Are you doing something differnet with your hair?
Steve aked Platt:
Can you cite any examples where Pirsig calls someone "a social level person" 
versus "a biological level person"? I really wish you could forget all your 
Wilbur and start over with Pirsig. They are really not saying the same 
thing. It's funny that you and DMB think so when you disagree about 
everyting else.

dmb says:
Obviously, I'm gonna disagree with you here, Steve. In several ways. As an 
example of Pirsig painting people in terms of the level of values that 
dominate them I'd offer LILA. And I don't just mean that particular 
character. I mean the whole book. 

...

DMB quotes:

"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the 
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of DQ, a sign-post which 
allows socially pattern-dominated people to see DQ. The problem has always 
been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for what they 
merely represent and are allowed to destroy the DQ they were originally 
intended to preserve."
Steve:
I can see talking about someone as being dominated by a particular type of pattern as long as you mean relative to other people. I don't see any way of saying overall what patterns are winning out. I mean, how could you compare the effects of gravity on a person to the effect of a social role or the effect of truth-sense.

What I asked Platt to do was show me where he says that a person is, say, "on the biological level." People do that all the time in this group thinking that they are speaking MOQese but I don't think such language is in the MOQ lexicon.

I think that the term "on the biological level" implies that the person is a biological entity rather than a collection of patterns from all levels.

DMB:
Oh, and if you're going to attact my postion in one of your posts, I think 
its only decent to address me at the time. Its also sort of uncool to assign 
positions to me out of thin air, without any reference to anything 
specifically asserted or even based on something I may have said many moons 
ago. I would certainly welcome any challange you care to issue. I'm just 
asking you to be a little less sleazy about it.

Steve:
Sleazy? Quite the opposite. I was being subtle and coy, batting my eyes from across the room and showing just a little leg. Hardly sleazy.

Regards,
Steve

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com