[MD] Social Ants?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 
 
> Platt:
> We have seen Nazi and Communist societies in the 20th century commit the
> most horrendous biological savagery ever recorded.
> 
> Steve:
> These savage behaviors were committed by individuals. As the NRA says,
> guns don’t kill people, individuals kill people.

Nazism and Communism refer to governments. Governments are social 
patterns. Governments kill people. Read Pirsig's description of the 
Giant.

> Platt said:
> What makes the individual level superior to the social level is the
> recognition by individuals of society's role in keeping criminal
> biological elements at bay … 
> 
> 
> Steve:
> As far as I can tell what makes the individual level superior is that
> you invented it and you say so. Pirsig supports the moral superiority of
> the intellectual level over the social level based on an evolutionary
> perspective.

Right. The emergence of the dominance of the individual moral level 
over the social moral level represents a moral step up on the moral 
evolutionary scale. It is better to be a free individual than a serf 
under the social pattern of Communism.  

> Platt:
> With the personal values that comprise the intellectual 
> level …
> 
> Steve:
> Please don’t use the word “intellectual” to describe your special
> level. It has nothing to do with Pirsig’s MOQ and you will confuse
> people using that term in this forum. The patterns of value that
> comprise Pirsig’s intellectual level is the world of ideas while
> Platt's individual level is a list of morals that define Quality for
> you.

I don't think people in this forum are "easily confused." I have a 
higher regard for their intelligence than you do. As for the 
intellectual level being the world of ideas, what is moral about about 
the ideas of Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto and the Koran?   
 
> Note 95. "Intellect is simply thinking."

Right. Individuals think. Societies don't think.

> Note 25. "For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say that the intellectual
> level is the same as mind."

Right. Individuals have minds. Societies don't.

> Note 70. It’s important to remember that both science and Eastern
> religions regard “the individual” as an empty concept. It is
> literally a figure of speech. If you start assigning a concrete reality
> to it you will find yourself in a philosophic quandary.

Pirsig doesn't deny the concrete reality of the individuals he talks 
about in Lila, including himself. Maybe you can explain the 
"philosophical quandary."

> Platt:
> …such as hard work, personal responsibility, self-discipline, 
> individual initiative, craftsmanship, commitment to excellence, thrift,
> delayed gratification, honor of achievement, optimism, life long pursuit
> of knowledge, etc., firmly established as the highest moral order,
> reversion to senseless animal behavior by freedom-loving individuals
> becomes a rarity.
> 
> Rigel would like to sum up this list up for you, Platt…
> “But I'd say that in general, and with many qualifications, quality is
> found in values I've learned in childhood and grown up with and used all
> my life and have found nothing wrong with. Those are values that are
> shared by personal friends and family, my law associates and other
> companions.  Because we believe in these common values we're able to act
> morally toward one another.”
> 
> Steve:
> If you insist on your individual level having something to do with
> Pirsig’s work I would suggest calling it “the Rigel level,” after
> all, with hard work, personal responsibility, self-discipline,
> individual initiative, craftsmanship, commitment to excellence, thrift,
> delayed gratification, honor of achievement, optimism, life long pursuit
> of knowledge, etc. you are describing his ideas about quality.

Perhaps you could present some evidence that these values are what 
Rigel subscribes to. Without such evidence, I will go by what Pirsig 
says about Rigel's adherence to the morality of the law, a social 
pattern. For evidence that the values above belong at a higher level 
than social, you might cite the following from Lila: 

"It was their optimism, their belief in the future, their codes of 
craftsmanship and labor and thrift and self-discipline that really 
built twentieth-century America. Since the Victorians disappeared the 
entire drift of this century has been toward a dissipation of these 
values." 

Right. The social values of political correctness, diversity, 
multiculturism and affirmative action have dissipated the individual 
values cited above -- the values that "built 20th century America," the 
envy of the world.

Regards,
Platt