[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,

Platt:
I'm sure Stalin considered it true that he would be better off if his 
dissidents were crushed. So what made his rationale bad? 

Steve:
I explained that his behavior is immoral based on considering the moral hierarchy as a whole.

>From a purely intellectual perspective, his reasoning is sound if it is true that he was better off after dissidents were crushed.


Steve said:
> Applying the moral hierarchy is not as simple as intellectual=good,
> social = bad. Stalin's silencing of dissenters is recognized to be
> immoral when considering the evolutionary hierarchy as a whole and
> deciding whether such behavior contributes to or hinders evolution of
> static patterns toward dynamic quality.

Platt:
It seems you have applied the MOQ to come up with a simple "Stalin 
bad."

Steve:
Such a conclusion based on the MOQ does not come from simply saying that one thing is intellectual and therefore should alawys win over another thing that is social.

The MOQ says that "it is immoral for intellect
to be dominated by society for the same reasons it is immoral for children
to be dominated by their parents.  But that doesn't mean that children
should assassinate their parents, and it doesn't mean intellectuals should
assassinate society.


> Platt:
> 
> What does SOLWAQI stand for?
> 
> Steve:
> It doesn't stand for anything other than Platt's Philospophy of the
> Individual versus the Collective.
> 
> It's intended to remind you of Bo's attempt to improve the MOQ with
> SOLAQI where intellect is the subject/object distinction, which I see as
> just as WAQI as your idea.

If you want to play that game I'll call your interpretation of the MOQ 
SOLNUTI.


Steve:
That would be only fair if I were trying to make some sort of WAQI or NUTI correction to the MOQ.

If you have another shorthand name for Platt's Philosophy of the Individual Versus the Collective,  I'll be glad to use it. My concern is to make sure we distinguish it from Pirsig's MOQ.

> Steve:
> I'm not convinced that the serial killer is just a biologically
> dominated person. I think he is insane. At any rate whether you think a
> serial killer is insane or not, how does SOLWAQI deal with insanity?

Platt:
Like Pirsig.  
 
Steve said:
> In Pirsig's philosophy, an insane person is someone with illegal
> intellectual patterns. It is not an issue of being dominated by one
> level or another, it is a matter of bad intellectual patterns.

Platt:
Only bad because society says so. 

Steve:
Or bad because you say so. What other standard do you have besides logical consistency, economy of explanation, and agreement with experience?

The point is that the insane person is not an individual versus society issue but a low versus high quality intellectual patterns issue. Your philosphy does not deal with insanity like Pirsig because yours is all about what types of patterns are dominating a given person.

Steve said:
> Your
> philosophy does not seem to allow for such things because for you
> intellect=good individual, society=evil collective.

Platt:
Society=conformity, individual = freedom. All else being equal, which is 
better? 

Steve:
All, things being equal, the more dynamic route is always better. But I don't see how it makes sense to say that an individual is better than the society of which he is a part.

> > Steve:
> > Craftmanship is one of those words we use to refer to Quality. I don't
> > know that it belongs on any level.
> 
> Platt:
> Pirsig said the levels include everything.
> 
> Steve:
> What level is Quality on?
> 
> To the extent that craftmanship (and likewise, Quality) is a concept it
> is intellectual, but then so is shoddiness.

Platt:
Which is better?

Steve:
Craftmanship. Why do you ask?

Unless you are talking about crafting sentences or equations, I don't see what is intellectual about craftmanship.



Steve said to Platt's assertion that self-discipline is an intellectual value:
> > Self-discipline is part of the social-biological code, the one that
> > says that you shouldn't get drunk and pick up bar ladies.
> 
> Platt:
> 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.
> 
> Steve:
> The question was not about whether there is a self in every day
> language. The question is about whether it is social morality that says
> we need to deny our biological urges and not get drunk and not pick up
> bar ladies or is it intellectual. I think you are taking a strange view
> of intellect to say that self-discipline is an intellectual issue, but I
> guess it goes without saying at this point that I think you are taking a
> strange view of intellect.

Platt:
I'm pitting the free individual self against the collective conformist 
mob. That's intellect's conclusion of a higher morality, or as Pirsig 
said, " . . . the moral codes that established the supremacy of the 
intellectual order over the-social order." 
Steve:
That doesn't sound like self-discipline to me. Can you explain how it is intellectual or do you agree that the usual use of the term refers to denying biological urges in favor of social quality?

Regards,
Steve



 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.