[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve,

> 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.

So your interpretation of the MOQ is the only correct one? I don't 
think so. Seems to me your interpretation is static, like swishing old 
tea around in your cup. That's NUTI.

> > 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?

Is that your test of sanity? My test is can the person take care of 
herself.

> 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.

I disagree with your interpretation of how Pirsig deals with sanity. 
Lila went insane. She had no intellectual patterns to speak of. She 
fell back to biological patterns which in a human being often results 
in helplessness.
 
> Steve said:
> > Your
> > philosophy does not seem to allow for such things because for you
> > intellect=good individual, society=evil collective.

No. My philosophy, like Pirsig's, says society good, individual 
intellect better.
 
> 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.

I know you don't see. I blame myself for my lack of communicative 
ability.
 
> Unless you are talking about crafting sentences or equations, I don't
> see what is intellectual about craftmanship.

Craftsmanship, like honor, is something individuals hold internally as 
moral goals. They come from a deep intellectual understanding of how  
the world works at its best. 

> 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.

Yes, that describes accurately what you think of what I think.

> 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?

Since my explanations never make sense in your eyes, I see no reason to 
even try. Some things we either "get" or we don't, and no amount of 
explanation makes a wit of difference.

Regards,
Platt