[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Peter Corteen]

Hi Ant,

you said:
According to [Walpola] Rahula, the Buddha taught that a clinging to the self
[i.e. the individual] as real is the primary cause of dukkha (which is
usually translated as 'suffering)...

Sense of self arises (somehow) from the supporting lower levels. Although
sense of self appears to have continuity, in reality we have diffferent
behaviour according to different circumstance; 'I' changes constantly. It is
illusory and, as you say Ant, is just a useful convention

Regard

Peter

On 18/06/06, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Steve stated to Platt (from his post of June 17th pasted below):
>
> "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."
>
> That's a great point Steve in a very useful post.
>
> BTW, to answer Platt's question in your post, the reason that Pirsig
> stated
> that if you assign a concrete reality to the individual "you will find
> yourself in a philosophic quandary" is explained - to some extent - in
> Section 5.6 of my MOQ Textbook i.e.
>
> According to [Walpola] Rahula, the Buddha taught that a clinging to the
> self
> [i.e. the individual] as real is the primary cause of dukkha (which is
> usually translated as 'suffering)...
>
> A human individual may appear to have a specific and determinate nature
> (what can be referred to as their social or parikalpita nature).  However,
> a
> person is essentially related to the rest of the world and is not apart
> from
> it.  There are a tremendous number of inter-related chemical, biological,
> social and intellectual processes that operate within and around us (such
> as
> gravity, the pollination of flowers by insects, the production of oxygen
> by
> rainforests etc.).  Remove or alter any one of these components and the
> 'individual' is affected.  This is implied by Nagajuna who states:
>
> "Nothing in the universe can stand by itself – no thing, no face, no
> being,
> no neo-con and no event – and for this reason it is absurd to single
> anything out as the ideal to be grasped." (Watts, 1957, p.83)
>
> This recognition that everything (certainly on this planet) is
> interconnected seems to be gaining credence though possibly because,
> environmental and economic problems are, unfortunately, now tending to
> have
> noticeable and global effects.  As Baroness Warnock (1992, p.40) notes:
>
> "The growth of Green politics, the existence of such organizations as the
> World Wildlife Fund, the increasing anxiety felt about endangered species,
> and the gradual recognition that what we do now will have effects on a
> long-term future bear witness to the fact that [anyone _responsible_ is]
> becoming more conscious of our role as inhabitants of the world, and more
> conscious that we may have obligations to it."
>
> And, as Adnan Amin (the Director of the Regional Office for North America
> of
> the UNEP) notes, these problems will require global 'integrated'
> solutions:
>
> "In the context of globalization, all countries, developed and developing,
> are confronted with the challenge of environmental sustainability.  The
> present course is unsustainable, and postponing action is no longer an
> option. Underpinning many of the environmental problems the international
> community face is the poverty of the majority of the planet's inhabitants
> and excessive consumption by the minority..."
>
> Having said this, Rahula (1959, p.55)  makes it very clear that it's not
> incorrect to 'use such expressions in our daily life as 'I', 'you',
> 'being',
> 'individual', etc' as long as it is remembered that the self (like
> anything
> else conceptualised) is just a useful convention.
>
>
> =======end===========
>
> >From: Steve Peterson <vincentedisonluther at yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
> >Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Hi Platt,
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >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?
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >"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."
> >
> >Regards,
> >Steve
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>