[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Dan,

> >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.

Dan said:
> Hi Ant, Steve, Platt...
> 
> The MOQ would seem to say that you are all correct.

> 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:
> 
> 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.

Steve:
The issue at hand is not whether or not the individual
really exists. There is no question about whether th
eindividual is a useful concept in everyday life as
well as in philosophy. 

The question is whether it makes sense to think that
what Pirsig really meant by the individual level is
the intellectual level. The quotes I posted suggest
that for Pirsig the individual is not the central idea
of his metaphysics since doing so would be
inconsistent with his Buddhist affinity.

Can you provide any support for saying that it
actually is useful or clarifying or at all accurate to
say that the intellectual level is the same as Platt's
individual level? I've been trying to make the point
that Platt is saying something very different than
Pirsig with his Philosophy of the Individual versus
Society.

Regards,
Steve



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com