[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 

> You deserve credit (read blame) for your changes. I can understand not
> liking SOLWAQI, and as I said, I'd be glad to use whatever name you want
> so we can distinguish your ideas from the MOQ.

I see no need to distinguish my ideas from your ideas of the MOQ by 
using some sort of gimmick.  As I said, we have different 
interpretations. 

> > 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?

No. Because society says so. Pirsig: "He saw that the sane always know 
they are good because their culture tells them so. Anyone who tells 
them otherwise is sick, paranoid, and needs further treatment." 

> Platt:
> 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:
> Can you back up your claim that Lila had no intellectual patterns?

Pirsig: "Biologically she's fine, socially she's pretty far down the 
scale, intellectually she's nowhere." 

> > 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.

Platt:
> I know you don't see. I blame myself for my lack of communicative 
> ability.

Maybe if you read the story of the brujo again, you'd see how an 
individual can be better than the society of which he is a part. 

> > Unless you are talking about crafting sentences or equations, I don't
> > see what is intellectual about craftmanship.
> 
> Platt:
> 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. 
> 
> Steve:
> I suspected that honor was in SOLWAQI's individual level. Honor is a
> social pattern in the MOQ because it is about social recognition and
> respect. It is also is a good word for describing Rigel's values:
> 
> "There's always been something wrong, logically," the author went on. 
> "How can an act of love, that does no injury to anyone, be so evil? . .
> . Think about it.  Who was injured?" Richard Rigel thought about it.  He
> said, "It wasn't any act of love.  Lila Blewitt doesn't know what love
> means.  It was an act of deceit."...He said, "Let me try another word:
> 'Honor.' The person we are talking about dishonored his wife and he
> dishonored his children and he dishonored everyone who put trust in him,
> as well as himself.  People forgave him for his weakness, but they lost
> respect for him and that was what finished him for any position of
> responsibility."

You left out Pirsig's comment about Bill's behavior. "That's really 
bad," the author said, and looked down at the table." Seems the author 
and I are on the same page.

Regards,
Platt





> 
> Your SOLWAQI's individual and Rigel sure have a lot in common.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Platt:
> 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.
> 
> Steve:
> I still have enough respect for you to think that some day you'll get
> it.
> 
> Regards,
> Steve
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/