[MD] Reason, Tradition

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,

Steve said:
> > The fact that thoughts do not even seem moral to
> you
> > or to the average person is evidence that we are
> > talking about something completely other than
> social
> > patterns when we consider intellectual patterns.
> > That's why they "deserve their own level at the
> top." 
> > 
> > It's not just because someone thinks they are
> better.
> > It's because they are a whole new type of Good
> that
> > someone thinking in terms of social morality may
> not
> > even see as Quality.


Platt:
> So the intellectual patterns of "Mein Kampf" are a
> whole new type of 
> Good? I don't think so. 


Steve:
I don't think anyone would say that all ideas are good
ideas. It's just the sort of Quality we are talking
about in evaluating ideas is distinct from the sort of
Quality we are talking about with respect to social
patterns.

Steve:
> > Up until now I thought that you could see the
> > difference bewteen the value that holds an idea
> > together and the value that holds a society
> together.
> > I just thought you merely wanted to use a
> different
> > name for the latter. Now I see the problem runs
> much
> > much deeper.
> 


Platt:
> I thought you could see that the intellectual level
> in the MOQ is a 
> moral level just like the other levels, but each
> operating under a 
> different moral code. 

Steve:
I understand that. But the levels aren't collections
of morals, they are collections of moral relationships
seen as value patterns.

I was distinguishing moral as an adjective as in
relating to goodness or badness from "a moral" as a
noun as in any of these definitions from
Dictionary.com:

1.	The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a
fable, a story, or an event.
2.	A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a
maxim.
3.	morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of
sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right
and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the
public morals. 

None of those definitions apply to intellectual
patterns. If we are going to apply the word moral to
ideas it plays out less like the social good and bad
of the definitions above and more like true and false.
If we think of true as a species of Good we can use
moral terms to talk about intellectual patterns.


Platt said:
>Problem is, Pirsig really
> doesn't spell out the 
> moral code of the intellectual level. I do when I
> suggest it be the 
> individual level...

Steve:

He does describe Quality in terms of intellect when he
says the test of truth is "logical consistency,
agreement with experience, and economy of
explanation."

He also relates intellect to our thinking about
morality when he says, "The scientific test of a
"vice" should not be, "Does society approve or
disapprove?" The test should be, "Is it rational or
irrational?"



Platt:
>... which, incidentally, leads more
> directly to his hinted 
> at next level above, the level of art. 

Steve:

There is no art level.  There is a Code of Art.

Once again, you are confusing the interlevel codes
with the levels themselves. These codes are the rules
we have developed to resolve conflicts between levels.
The code of art is the way we resolve static-dynamic
disputes.

To the extent that art can not be appreciated in terms
of inorganic, biological, social, or intellectual
Quality it's quality is left undefined. RMP is quoted
time in again as never seeing a need to add to the
definition of art as a high Quality endeavor.



Steve:
> > By the way, there is nothing in your list of
> > "individual level" morals that Rigel wouldn't
> cheer
> > for, too. With the intellectual level we are
> talking
> > about the sort of Quality that Rigel and Lila
> pretty
> > much don't see.

Platt:
> You mean you wouldn't cheer for those personal
> morals, too?


Steve:

You are avoiding the point.

Of course I see those as virtues.  Rigel can see it
that way too. In fact, they are exactly the kind of
Quality he would fault Lila for not having, and it is
the sort of Quality most important to a guy like
Rigel.  His character represents someone with social
quality who can't see intellectual quality. You are
pretty much talking about 3rd level values with your
list of virtues.

Regards,
Steve


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