[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[David Harding]

Platt Holden wrote:
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>   
Platt,

Below I'm going to try and explain to you what you cannot yet see, 
because buried within the MOQ is..

"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."

To begin, the words "appetites, urges, whims and impulses" which 
wouldn't be far from a Victorians vocabulary during a condemnation of a 
person who'd be considered 'vulgar', are biological words.  To be any of 
these one would not be very high on the moral hierarchy.  This is the 
Victorian heritage in the MOQ.  Pirsig liked the Victorians remember? 
But he said their downfall was that they didn't know where they'd come 
from or where they were going.  They missed the point that biological 
quality is still quality, we still need it, but it is still from the 
social level perspective a bad thing, and while upholding society it 
should be put on hold and controlled for its own purpose(quality),  but 
then moreover when good, society should be put on hold and controlled 
for intellects own purpose(quality).

I've come to this conclusion a while back and I'm just as sure as ever 
that you've missed a point here.   I'll break the conflict down as this:

There is the 21st Century intellectuals (who above all else emphasize 
intellect ) vs the Victorians (who above all else emphasize society).  
Who do you pick? Or as you said:

 "The dominance between the free individual intellect and collective conformity pressures."


The problem both sides make is the mistake of SOM.  Remember SOM? 

Both the SOM intellectuals like Ayn Rand and the Victorians confuse 
biological and intellectual quality like you have. 

Within SOM the only morals (because it neglects morals thoroughly) are 
either current social mores(with small remnants of Victorian charm) or 
what could only be considered social chaos.   SOM confuses the two 
directions of the MOQ moral hierarchy.  It thinks that if it isn't 
society then it's not good because this is what the Victorians echo to 
us(who confused biological and intellectual quality).  Of course this is 
wrong and 21st Century intellectuals enjoy laughing at such ideas but 
they haven't got any better suggestions for a moral hierarchy.  Pirsig does!

Pirsig makes the MOQ distinction between intellectual and biological 
quality(because these are the only two directions one can go on the MOQ 
moral hierarchy). He says that in regards to society; biological quality 
should be killed, and while society has biology under wraps, 
intellectual quality should control society.  This solves a lot of 
problems.  It's all there in Lila.

So, if your still wondering what all this has to do with your original 
concerns for the individuals place in the MOQ:

A person who makes his decisions based on philosophy rather than 
biological whims and impulses, or even the from the lure of celebrity 
and the social level could be said to be a principled person.  Thus to 
put it very plainly the level of the principled person is the 
intellectual level.   But to be a good individual, one mustn't just be 
principled but must also have good values on all levels and be able to 
respond to DQ.  This requires moral self-regulation such as 
perseverance, patience, honesty, courage, prudence and diligence. These 
aren't just Victorian traits but traits of a good MOQ individual!

I've tried to make this as clear as possible for you.

Cheers,

David.