[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Dan, Gene,

Gene already responded to you and said pretty much what I would have wanted to say. I'm still not sure where you are coming from on this.  I seem to have annoyed you, and I'm not sure why.

Can you summarize for me what your understanding of Platt's intellectual level is so that I can know what it is you are defending?
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.

Steve:

Sure, Note 140. "The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four parts: 
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual."


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.
Steve:
Are you saying that no one should speak up when someone has got it all wrong about the MOQ and what it means?

I don't know what sorts of restrictions you think I could possibly impose on anybody. If you've been following this discussion, you should know that I have been using the writings of RMP to demonstrate that Platt is way off on his interpretation of the MOQ. I haven't been saying that I am somehow an authority on the subject and everyone should just take my word for it.



>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. 

Steve:

Platt replaces the intellectual level with the individual level and the social level with the collective level, but what is the individual level as you see it? If for you and Platt, individual is just a synonym for intellectual I would find that strange but it wouldn't indicate a problem with interpreting the MOQ. But Platt describes the individual level as something quite different than the intellectual level...
Steve:
>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 doen't like.

Dan:

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

Steve:

Of course not. What's your point?

The question is, is the above what you think Pirsig is talking about when he talks about the intellectual level? Or is the Victorian code actually used to describe social values?


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.

Steve:
Is the above description of Platt's individual level anything like Pirsig's definition of the intellectual level that he gave in the letter or in LC?

>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.

Steve:
I don't see what is wrong with it. Can you explain?

Regards,
Steve


 		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.