[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Steve Peterson <vincentedisonluther at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 06:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hi Dan,
>
>Dan said:
>And there is no question that the intellectual level is a useful
>concept in the MOQ. This seems to be just word play though; if not, please 
>clarify your point.
>
>Steve:
>I don’t know what you mean. What is just word play?

Hi Steve

Please see below.

>
>Steve:
> >The question is whether it makes sense to think that
> >what Pirsig really meant by the individual level is
> >the intellectual level.
>
>Dan:
>But that answer's quite obvious, isn't it? Platt has been making sense of 
>it all along.
>
>Steve:
>I’ve been saying that Platt is making no sense.

Dan:

I appreciate that. Still, I contend that Platt is making sense in a 
logically consistent manner. That isn't to say you are wrong, however.
>
>Dan:
>Perhaps it all depends on what the context and definition of "it" is...
>
>Steve:
>If “it” is the intellectual level, then there is no context that I’m 
>aware of where Platt’s “individual level” is the same thing.

They are both concepts.

>
>
>Dan:
>In the language of everyday life, the MOQ begins with experience. Who is 
>"it" that experiences?
>
>Steve:
>In the MOQ that SOM idea is subordinate to Quality, the dynamic-static 
>split, and the moral hierarchy of static patterns.

Dan:

In the MOQ, Quality, the Dynamic-static split, and the moral hierarchy of 
static patterns are all intellectual patterns of value. The idea of the 
individual is too.

Steve:

>It does not define the intellectual level, it is a part of it.

Dan:

Let me see if I have this right... "It" (the individual?) does not define 
the intellectual level. "It" is part of the intellectual level... is that 
what you're saying?

>
>
>Steve:
> >Can you provide any support for saying that it
> >actually is useful or clarifying or at all accurate to
> >say that the intellectual level is the same as Platt's
> >individual level?
>
>Dan:
>I can provide support that the MOQ says that the individual is composed of 
>all four levels plus undefined Dynamic Quality.
>
>Steve:
>That is why the individual is not Pirsig’s fourth level. Only part of the 
>individual

Dan:

Which part?

Steve:

>is contained in the set of all patterns of thought known as the 
>intellectual level, so the intellectual level is not the individual.

Dan:

I think that the MOQ would say the concept of the individual is an 
intellectual pattern of value just as the concept of the intellectual level 
is an intellectual pattern of value.

Please provide evidence where the MOQ says we can separate any part of the 
individual and contain said part in the intellectual level.

>
>
>Dan:
>In that context, the language of everyday life, useful
>conventions are those that work. If it doesn't work, don't use it.
>Would you agree?
>
>Steve:
>Absolutely, and Platt’s individual level does not work as an 
>interpretation of Pirsig. It is Platt’s own philosophy which may work for 
>him but should not be passed off as ideas about the MOQ.

Dan:

Okay. Now we're getting to it. So you want to impose restictions on what we 
can think and write about the MOQ. And (of course) you (who else) will be 
the authority who decrees what works and what doesn't. Yep. That is the 
language of everyday life. What (I think) is so cool about the MOQ is that 
it gives us a way of stepping outside the shortsightedness of the language 
of everyday life. Most people don't see that though. Do they?

>
>Steve:
> >I've been trying to make the point
> >that Platt is saying something very different than
> >Pirsig with his Philosophy of the Individual versus
> >Society.
>
>Dan:
>What Robert Pirsig and Platt are saying is not mutually exclusive. But that 
>wasn't my point. You already know what the intellectual level is. Why 
>bicker over petty generalities? The MOQ offers much grander vistas.
>
>Steve:
>I wonder if you really know what Platt is saying if you think that his 
>philosophy is not inconsistent with the MOQ.

Dan:

I thought he said that the individual and the intellectual level can be 
viewed as the same. That's what we're talking about. Right? I'm not for sure 
but I really hope it is. What I think I said was that what Platt is saying 
and what Mr. Pirsig is saying is not mutually exclusive. I am pretty sure 
about that (not that I am right - mind you - but rather about what I said). 
Still, I thought Platt had an idea, not a philosophy. Platt has a 
philosophy? Wow! Now that is cool!

>
>Platt’s individual level as he defines it is about the Victorian code of 
>craftsmanship and labor, honor, self-discipline, honesty, thrift, optimism, 
>self-reliance, hard work, personal responsibility, self-discipline, 
>individual initiative, commitment to excellence,
>delayed gratification, honor of achievement—I’m not making this up. 
>These are all things that Platt says define the individual level for Platt. 
>Also, the individual level is further defined by Platt as being in 
>opposition to environmentalism, tolerance, multiculturalism, and anything 
>else that annoys Platt about liberals. Basically, Platt’s SOLWAQI amounts 
>to a list of things he likes and doesn’t like.

Dan:

And you don't like Platt's idea, right?

Steve:

>
>I do know what the intellectual level is as Pirsig defines it, as I am sure 
>you do as well.

Dan:

I guess I didn't really need Mr. Pirsig to define the intellectual level. 
When I read LILA I knew what he meant. The question was included in LILA'S 
CHILD as  the definitions of the levels came up as discussion topics early 
on in the old Lila Squad archives. I remember feeling silly when Paul Turner 
wrote Robert Pirsig a letter questioning the definition of the intellectual 
level in the MOQ. Silly that I didn't question it. But the more I thought 
about it, the more I realized I wasn't the one being silly.

>As I hope you now see, these aren’t just petty generalities. These are 
>specific inconsistencies >with every one of Pirsig’s many definitions of 
>the intellectual level.

Dan:

I'm sorry but as you see - I don't see. While you may see specific 
inconsistencies with Platt's ideas, I see an idea that provokes many 
discussions.

>
>
>Dan said to Ant:
>“a human being is "self" aware but only after growing to a certain age, 
>biologically, socially, and intellectually. What does this mean? It appears 
>that only when we intellectualize the self, do we become self-aware. Would 
>you agree?
>
>Steve:
>I agree. “The self” is an intellectual pattern, contained within the 
>set of all patterns of thought known as the intellectual level. The 
>individual is not the definition of the intellectual level. The 
>intellectual level contains part of the individual.

Dan:

You may want to re-think the above passage.

>
>Dan:
>To "kill" the individual is to kill the idea of the
>individual. Therefore, it appears that the concept of the individual and 
>the individual cannot stand apart. Would you agree?
>
>Steve:
>Agree. But, In the MOQ that SOM idea is subordinate to Quality, the 
>dynamic-static split, and the moral hierarchy of static patterns.

Dan:

You agree but then immediately negate the agreement. That is what I mean by 
word play. You can take anything that is written and twist it to mean 
something else. As one of my old professors used to say... oh... wait a 
minute... I never had an old professor... In fact, come to think of it... I 
never had any professor... oh never mind.

Thanks for your comments,

Dan

"In the mind, the mind is not to be found; the nature of the mind is clear 
light." (Buddha)

"A person is not earth, not water,
Not fire, not wind, not space,
Not consciousness, and not all of them.
What person is there other than these?" (Nagarjuna, Precious Garland)