[MD] Platt's Individual Level

Gene M boredandunstable at gmail.com
Mon Jun 19 09:43:15 PDT 2006


On 6/18/06, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks
>
> 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.


Yeah, I tried this tact a while ago on him. As you can see, no effect. I
think it's the key to explaining the whole problem though. He's taking a
social individual, and putting an entire level under it. It's very immoral
indeed.

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.


Important word here is Useful. I'll readily agree that evreything is pretty
much just a convention. But Useful? That's a rare few conventions, and
depends entirely on context. From Platt's POV subjugating the intellectual
level to the social level is somehow Useful, so he can use the convention of
"Individual Level" without problem. For most of us, it seems, this is not a
useful convention at all. In fact, it causes an immense amount of confusion
and division. Platt has agreed that all levels have their own form of
individuals, and that human individuals exist on all levels. So calling
something the "individual level" is meaningless! To those aquainted with the
MOQ it makes no sense at all, has no meaning if you will, and for someone
new to the MOQ it would simply cause an Immense amount of confusion.

Therefore I would argue it is Not a Useful convention, unless you've got an
axe to grind against the MOQ.

-Gene



More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list