[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: [MD]  Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:14:42 +0000
>
>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.

Hi Ant, Steve, Platt...

The MOQ would seem to say that you are all correct. From LILA'S CHILD:

"DG:

"I was referring to your statement: “The Buddhists would say it
[the concept of “I”] is certainly central to a concept of reality but it is
not central to or even a part of reality itself.” It may be that I am
interpreting your statement incorrectly, but it appears to me that the
Buddhists are saying reality itself is not a concept or an intellectual
pattern of value.
"For instance, a materialist might dream that someday science will
develop a theory of everything. On the other hand, an idealist might
tend to side with the Buddhists in saying intellectual concepts of
reality are not central to or even part of reality itself? That we will
never develop a theory of everything? That there’s no chance we can
ever intellectually know reality?"

"RMP:

"The confusion here seems to result from the two languages of
Buddhism, the language of the Buddha’s world and language of
everyday life. In the language of everyday life, reality and intellect are
different. From the language of the Buddha’s world, they are the
same, since there is no intellectual division that governs the Buddha’s
world."

What Platt seems to  be pointing to with his "individual" level is from the 
language of everyday life. The "individual" is an intellectual division of 
reality, a concept, albeit a central concept of reality:

>
>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.

So lets say it's okay to equate the intellectual level with the individual 
as long as it's remembered they are both just useful conventions.

Thanks for your comments,

Dan