[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 

> 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."

Does the truth of an idea determine whether it is good or bad? What 
about the idea that Stalin had to silence dissenters? He acted on the 
idea, it's true. But on what basis would you say it's a bad idea? 

> 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.)

What does SOLWAQI stand for?

> 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.

Does the truth that Communism slaughtered untold millions of its own 
citizens have nothing at all to do its "problem?" 

> 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." 

There were no humans of any kind before "the collective." All humans 
are a combination of all levels plus the capability of responding to 
DQ. What counts in looking at their behavior is what level dominates.
 
> 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.

I'm talking very much like the MOQ. You apparently forgot about Wilson, 
Roosevelt, Hitler, Humphrey, Galileo, scientists, philosophers, 
scientists, criminals and hippies not to mention Dusenberry, Rigel, 
Lila, John Wooden Leg and of course my hero, the brujo -- all talked 
about at length by Pirsig in the MOQ. 

> 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 intellectual
>  order over the social order is part of the social level as laws are
>  social patterns.

Laws established by individuals dominated by the individual level that 
opposes the conformity demanded by the collective social level -- laws 
that freed individuals from social conformity.  

> 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.

Whereas I say he often used people to describe the types of moral 
patterns, as pointed out above.. 

> 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.

Pirsig said the levels include everything.

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

Without a self (which Pirsig denies) there's no self-discipline. I say 
in the language of everyday life there is a self which belongs at the 
individual level as distinct from just being a cipher at the social 
level.
 
> 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.

For all you know, Pirsig used the levels to explain his politics. But 
the motive is neither here nor there. What counts is that politics is 
part and parcel of the MOQ. To ignore it is to close your eyes to the  
application of his philosophy to "everyday life." :-)

Regards,
Platt