[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Platt Holden]

All:

Although my proposal to rename the MOQ's intellectual level the 
individual level has been met with a measure of mild reproof, a place 
to put personal moral character traits such as Pirsig used to describe 
Victorians who "really built 20th century America" (codes of 
craftsmanship, labor, thrift and self-discipline) appears to be lacking 
in the Pirsig's moral hierarchy.

It seems passing strange that in a book devoted to an Inquiry into 
Morals precious little mention is made of the patterns of individual 
moral self-regulation such as perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, 
prudence, diligence, and other  personal character traits that govern 
one's response to stimuli according to values and principles rather 
than appetites, urges, whims and impulses.

In other words, at what level do you insert a pattern of morally 
principled person? 

If you answer "the social level" you are buying into the common notion 
that all morality is social and always involves other people, i.e., no 
morality required by someone marooned alone on a desert island.

Or perhaps you agree with the some here who maintain that the human 
individual doesn't exist at all but is merely a symbolic figment of 
mental manipulations.

Or perhaps you'll argue that a principled person is simply a high 
quality person vs. a low quality persona lacking such traits as 
outlined above. 

As to the first answer, there's no need for an intellectual level if 
everything is social anyway. 

As to the second answer, I suggest those who really believe it sit on a 
hot stove.

As to the third answer, a high quality person vs. low quality one, we 
have seen how Pirsig answers the question, "Does Lila have quality?" by 
comparing her attributes to the moral levels. Without an individual 
level containing the pattern of a principled person, what criteria do 
we use to say a principled person is high quality?    

There may be other answers I'm not aware of which is the reason for 
this post, asking for your response. But, unless someone can come up 
with a convincing case to include the pattern of a principled person in 
a level as Pirsig defines them, or to include the pattern somewhere  in 
his definition of a person as consisting of all four levels plus 
ability to respond to DQ, then a change in naming and describing the 
intellectual level to the individual level might further be in order so 
as to include the pattern of a principled person as well as emphasize 
the ongoing battle for the dominance between the free individual 
intellect and collective conformity pressures.

I look forward to your comments.

Regards,
Platt