[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Hi SA, Arlo, All:

Arlo clearly explained his position regarding individuals and the 
collective. His summary was how all summaries should be -- short, 
succinct and unambiguous:

> 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.

As Arlo indicated, my position places more emphasis on the catalytic 
power and thus the value of the individual in progressive change. I 
take my position directly from the emphasis Pirsig places on the role 
of the brujo in the story of evolution of the Zuni tribe. Pirsig's 
summary was also short, succinct and unambiguous:

"The brujo's values were in conflict with the tribe at least partly 
because he had learned to value some of the ways of the new neighbors 
and they had not. He was a precursor of deep cultural change. A tribe 
can change its values only person by person and someone has to be 
first." (Lila, 9)

I have also pointed out to Arlo in the past that IMO the intellectual 
had its beginnings when the first caveman turned to his fellow hunter 
and said, "Tiger there" or words to that effect, and that one by one, 
individual by individual, words were added and language formed to 
create the intellectual level. The idea that this was "collective" only 
came as a far removed afterthought, and someone was first even with 
that concept.

Finally, Arlo likes to claim he doesn't come down on one side or 
another in so-called dichotomies like individual/collective, good/evil, 
liberal/conservative, etc. Yet, in focusing on the interplay of the 
individual/collective, he can't help but raise a interplay/isolate 
dichotomy. I think it was Plato who observed that things are only known 
by their opposites, like we would have no concept of one without the  
many. In other words, dichotomies are built into the warp and woof of 
the intellectual level. Pirsig is not exception. His philosophy 
requires the dichotomy of dynamic/static to makes sense.

I think I know how the objection to hard and fast dichotomies arises. 
It's almost a given among humanities professors that nothing is 
absolutely true -- that truth consists of shades of grey. At the same 
time they hold that shades of grey are absolutely true, thus 
contradicting their own assertion. Either that or they tumble into the 
mad abyss of infinite regress.

But as in everything else, I could be wrong.

Platt