[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 

> Platt:
> 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?   
> 
> Steve:
> To the extent that these refer to ideas, their ideas are intellectual
> patterns. They don't have to be good ideas to be intellectual patterns.
> Keep in mind that the MOQ levels plus DQ include everything. Bad ideas
> aren't excluded.

But you have to ask, "On what basis do I judge ideas to be bad?" Pirsig 
provides us with a rational means of making such judgments based on his 
moral evolutionary hierarchy. The ideas of those mentioned above are 
bad because they are not based on intellectual values, but on social 
values backed by biological force.
 
> > 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.
> 
> Steve:
> We could list things that individuals do that societies don't all day.
> For example, only individuals become rapists and serial killers. So
> what? I still can't figure out what you think is so profound about that
> idea.

Because by the MOQ moral evolutionary hierarchy, individuals who are 
rapists and serial killers are dominated by biological values. The 
highest moral level (the level of art may be higher) is dominated by 
independent thinking individuals who value freedom from social value 
conformity and biological value physical force above all else. In other 
words, individuals like you. Furthermore, the social level is not 
defined by thoughtful people (intellectuals) but by nameless, faceless 
groups such as one finds at a political rally, at prayers in a mosque, 
or marching on a military parade ground.  

> The point is that as Pirsig has defined the intellectual level, it is
> about thinking, not being thrifty. The question shouldn't be what is so
> moral about ideas. Having read Lila you should see that the type of
> value that holds an idea together is the same value we refer to when
> discussing morals. The question is what's so intellectual about being
> thrifty?

Thrift is directly related to personal responsibility and individual 
liberty vs.dependence on society. Recall Pirsig's saying that 
individual liberty, democracy, free speech, etc. are part of the moral 
code that "establish the supremacy of intellectual order over the 
social order." A social order consisting of victims seeking handouts is 
not Pirsig's idea of the highest moral level. 

> > 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.
> 
> Platt:
> Pirsig doesn't deny the concrete reality of the individuals he talks
> about in Lila, including himself. Maybe you can explain the
> "philosophical quandary."
> 
> Steve:
> Pirsig calls "the individual" a figure of speech. There is no way that
> he meant individual level with his intellectual level.

I fail to see how that answers my question about a "philosophical 
quandary."  All speech is "figurative" or symbolic related to concrete 
reality. A menu won't satisfy hunger.

> > 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.
> 
> Platt:
> 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." 
> 
> Steve:
> This quote comes from Pirsig's description of the Victorians used to
> characterize social morality. It's only your social=bad and
> intellect=good bias that made you misread this. There is nothing wrong
> with these values, they just aren't intellectual.

These moral attributes are personal, not social. There's no way you can 
honestly say "craftsmanship" and "self-discipline" are social patterns. 
Nor are they inorganic or biological. There's no place to put these 
moral patterns except at the intellectual "thinking" level, for they 
constitute the basis for individual liberty that is the intellectual 
level's most significant and dominating idea.  
 
> "Today we are living in an intellectual and technological paradise and a
> moral and social nightmare because the intellectual level of evolution,
> in its struggle to become free of the social level, has ignored the
> social level's role in keeping the biological level under control."
> 
> It is the loss of values like these that put us in a "moral and social
> nightmare" while their dissipation does not prevent us from having an
> "intellectual and technological paradise."

Note the intellectual level's "struggle to become free of the social 
level." Personal freedom is key to the intellectual level. 

It is precisely the dissipation of personal moral attributes that has 
contributed to America's moral decline. Now we have helpless "victims" 
demanding "rights" while such static social patterns as public 
education and other government bureaucracies become increasingly 
bloated and ineffective. Also note that Pirsig doesn't hesitate to 
analyze and discuss political matters which some here would prefer to 
avoid on the grounds that such discussions lead nowhere. I'm with 
Pirsig in not shying away from discussing the political effects of his 
philosophy. 

Regards,
Platt