[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse, 

> I was just reading some of the other posts in this thread and the 
> 'Social Ants?' thread and something SA said caused a thought to pop into
> my head. Platt's use of the term 'Individual Level' is actually quite
> immoral! Platt's attempt to iconize the individual is effectively
> constituting the individual as a celebrity, thus placing the individual
> firmly in the social level. By insisting that this social level entity
> is then a replacement for Pirsig's intellectual level he is committing
> the cardinal sin of undermining the intellectual level for the purposes
> of the social level.
> 
> Naughty, naughty Platt. You're a bad, bad boy! It's detention and lines
> for you.

Nice try, Horse. A celebrity is someone famous by definition. You and 
the rest of us who contribute to this site are hardly in that category. 
Yet in debating Pirsig's MOQ we are each, individually, occupying the 
highest moral level in the MOQ hierarchy, "manipulating symbols 
independently of the patterns they stand for." 

By changing the label of the highest moral level from intellectual to 
individual, I'm putting the "who" into "manipulating symbols" which 
Pirsig for some unknown reason chose to leave out. Writers have been 
cautioned for ages that use of the passive voice is low Quality.

Great to hear from you, and thanks for all you do to keep this site 
alive and kicking. The archives are the best on the Web!

Platt