[MD] Intellectual activity

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Hi SA,

Sounds like you are coming more from Platt's camp. I'm sure he's appreciating
the comradery, if nothing else!

We are coming at this from different angles, and although I think I see in what
you are saying some hint of dialectical inter-relation between the "individual"
and the "collective", your stressing of the individual is much more in line
with "Plattian" thought. :-)

Before commenting briefly on your closing sentence, I wanted to add this.
Terminologically, I think we need to be as precise as possible. From my read of
Pirsig, I gather that there are "individuals" on all levels of the  MOQ, and
within that level, it is the collective activity of those individuals from
which the higher level above it emerges.

That is "society" and "collective" are often used as synonyms, and I step back
from that. To me it makes sense to say, "on the social level are individuals,
from whose collective activity emerges the intellectual level". Just as I'd
say, "on the biological level there are individuals, from whose collective
activity emerges the social level".

"Identity", which I use to mean "the individual that you feel is YOU", is the
point-of-contact between individuals on the social level whose collective
activity has given rise to the intellectual level. Your "body", I'd argue is a
"biological individual", although to be sure each of the levels contains
gradations, as a cell is also a "biological level individual" formed by
collective activity of its components, on down to the inorganic level.

Now, your last point...

[SA]
Just as Pirsigs' MOQ is a unique way to become enlightened, which came from
Pirsig himself.

[Arlo]
Here you align with Platt, but I disagree. Platt and I have had this
conversation before, so let me just restate briefly my position.

The MOQ not only came from Pirsig, but from Kant, Hegel, the Chairman, Chris,
the English department secretary, the Sophists, Dusenberry, Kluckholn, etc...
Each of these had a voice in the "choir" that became the MOQ. Certainly, Pirsig
is what I call the "keystone species" in this ecological perspective. (Platt
hates this, just so you know.) But without the voices (the historical dialogue)
of others, "Pirsig" would have never been able to come up with the MOQ. In
other words, Pirsig is the "latest speaker" in an ongoing dialogue built upon
previous speakers, from which the ability to speak comes.

To restate my position on the "individual-collective" dichotomy, my view does
not give absolute credit to Pirsig or the collective-historical dialogue, but
from the "interplay" of the two. BOTH are valued equally, and their
significance is not contrasted with the other, but derived from it.

Make sense?

Arlo