[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,

Platt said:
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.
 
Steve:
Ideas are not bad because they are based on social patterns. All ideas are based on social patterns. Biological and social values are not ideas, they are neither true nor false.  The basis for judging ideas are as follows: "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation."

These are the only tests we need to argue that Nazism and Communism are bad ideas.

By the way, Pirsig does not say that Communism is bad because it is social. (It only is social for you because of the odd way that you've defined the social level in your  "Metaphysics of the Individual versus the Collective" or SOLWAQI.) Pirsig says that Facism is a reaction against intellectualism and that is why it opposes Communism. The problem with Communism and socialism to RMP is not that they are not intellectual. Pisig says that socialism is the idea of an intellectually based society. The problem is that they shut the door to DQ.

Platt:
Because by the MOQ moral evolutionary hierarchy, individuals who are 
rapists and serial killers are dominated by biological values. 

Steve:
>From an evolutionary hierarchy of individuals perspective, isn't the serial killer a fairly modern type of individual? He must be post social level because there were no serial killers before "the collective." 

Platt:
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. 

Steve:
As I said before, I think it is useful to talk about types of people in terms of relative domination by different types of patterns of value, but you are not talking about anything like the MOQ when you say that a level is dominated by a type of person.


Steve:
> 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?

Platt:
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." 


  Steve:
 The moral code that establishes supremacy of the of the intellectual order over the social order is part of the social level as laws are social patterns.

Platt:
A social order consisting of victims seeking handouts is 
not Pirsig's idea of the highest moral level. 

Steve:
Moral levels as types of people is not Pirsig's idea at all. He talked about types of patterns of valaues and used those types value patterns to describe people.


Platt:
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.  

Steve:
Craftmanship is one of those words we use to refer to Quality. I don't know that it belongs on any level.

Self-discipline is part of the social-biological code, the one that says that you shouldn't get drunk and pick up bar ladies.


Platt:
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. 
Steve:
The difference is that Pirsig recognized an evolution of value patterns of several types and then applied that evolutionary hierarchy to try to explain cultural changes, types of people, issues of the day, etc in terms of conflicts between these types of values whereas you created your Metaphysics of the Individual versus the Collective (SOLWAQI) as a correction to Pirsig to be consistent with your political agenda.  Pirisg applied his levels to explain politics whereas you define your levels based on your politics.

Regards,
Steve



 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.