[MD] Reason, Tradition

[Michael Hamilton]

Matt, Platt,

I wrote:
> > In Mill's words: "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he
> > is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which
> > merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over
> > himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
> >
> > So in Mill's liberalism, the society is allowed to evaluate conduct
> > which directly affects society, whereas the individual is allowed to
> > evaluate conduct which directly affects only himself.

Matt's response:
> I think this may be the essence of what I consider a good distinction
> between a third and fourth level to be.  However, looking at it, you can
> imagine why I've been suggesting that perhaps "intellectual" isn't the best
> word.

I wouldn't offer Mill's liberalism as an essential definition of the
distinction between third and fourth. As DMB said somewhere,
individuality emerges with the fourth level, but that isn't all there
is to it. I think Mill, writing in the 19th century, was making a good
political response to the emergence of the fourth level (stuff that
had been going on in the preceding couple of centuries). He perhaps
did more than anyone to establish its dominance over social value, by
arguing for social patterns of value that enable and encourage the
cultivation of individuality and the skill of reasoned argument.
Individuality is a means to eudaimonia (human flourishing). Reasoned
argument is a means to truth. Truth is already acknowledged as an
aspect of Pirsig's 4th level, as the label "intellect" shows. Perhaps
eudaimonia, Platt's gumptious "character", the agent of evolution, is
the missing piece.

Platt's response:
> I like this distinction between social morality and personal morality,
> also known as "character." The personal morality attributes of hard
> work, personal responsibility, self-discipline, individual initiative,
> craftsmanship, commitment to excellence, thrift, delayed gratification,
> honor of achievement, optimism, life long pursuit of knowledge and the
> like seem today to lack the moral weight afforded to the social
> morality of diversity, affirmative action, feminism, multiculturism,
> environmentalism, political correctness and the like -- to the long
> term detriment of a free society.

Like Arlo, I agree with you on the personal gumption side of things.
However, you try to pit these virtues AGAINST "diversity" and
"political correctness". This is just incoherent. Mill argued for
diversity in self-regarding conduct and tolerance of the
self-regarding conduct of others, in order to ENABLE people to develop
their personal character without interference from bigots. No
provision for diversity means no room for "individual initiative".

Matt wrote:
> I like Platt's "individual", but the way Platt uses it half the time
> it looks like the same begging-the-question way that DMB uses it.  I don't
> think these distinctions between levels are good at all for conducting
> arguments with other democratic citizens--unless you could create a
> convincing case in which either side became either a communist or fascist,
> i.e. societies that do not leave space for the sovereign individual.  Those
> cases are hard to make, however, given that Platt calling me and DMB Red
> Commie Pig-Dogs and us calling him a White Fascist Homophobe fall a little
> flat and border on a little ridiculous and overstated.  My gut feeling is
> that the three of us have minor differences of opinion compared to our
> differences with Stalinists and Nazis, that a level distinction is the wrong
> weapon because its too big a weapon, good for smearing an opponent radically
> different from us, but too unwieldy for smaller differences.

Agreed. It's all too tempting to use the levels inappropriately as a
stick to beat opponents with. Subtler arguments are often needed.