[MD] Neoconservatism

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve,

I agree with most of what you say, especially the interdependence of 
Pirsig's levels. And of course there are "individuals" and 
"collectives" at all levels if you think of those terms simply as the  
the one and the many. But I think your post proves my point. It is 
unique, an intellectual pattern created exclusively by you, the 
individual Steve of which there is no other -- in DNA, fingerprints, or 
creative manipulation of meaningful symbols. 

As regards property rights being biological, it seems you are 
attributing a concept about the relationship between people and things 
to animals, a metaphoric device called anthropomorphism. Perhaps it 
helps to clarify the concept if we consider private property as that 
which belongs to a human individual as opposed to public property which 
belongs to a human community collectively. (Pirsig reserves the social 
and intellectual levels to human beings.)

Finally, "liking" personal property is not the issue. The right to own 
personal property as opposed to property being public (as in communist 
communities) is an intellectual vs. society issue, similar to rights of 
free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, trial by jury, etc., 
etc. These rights recognize that survival of the intellectual level 
requires it be protected from domination by the social level. We have 
witnessed the horrors that ensue when such rights are abridged.

Platt

> Hi Gene, Platt,
> 
> Gene:
> > > For me, the Intellectual level is a personal one,
> > each individual has
> > > their own Static Intellectual Quality stored
> > inside their head. 
> 
> Each individual also has its own set of biological
> patterns.
> 
> Keep in mind also that the intellectual patterns that
> a person participates in are not generally unique to
> the individual. Patterns of thought that are deemed to
> be high quality by one person (e.g. 1+1=2 over 1+1=3)
> are frequently shared by others in "the collective"
> since "the collective" is required to perpetuate these
> patterns. Newton was standing onthe shoulders of
> giants and the intellectual level as a whole stands on
> the shoulders of the social level. Though some social
> patterns may inhibit intellectual development, the
> intellectual level only exists because of other social
> patterns.
> 
> Platt said:
> > I agree. I prefer to call the Intellectual level the
> > Individual level 
> > for the reason you cite. It also follows that the
> > Social level might 
> > better be called the Collective level. 
> 
> I doubt that the next edition of Lila will include
> such a change.
> 
> Pirsig defined intellect as simply thinking and as
> "the manipulation of abstract symbols that stand for
> patterns of experience." While it is true that only
> individuals can manipulate symbols (participate in
> intellectual patterns) it is also true that only
> individuals can participate in social patterns.
> 
> Platt, I don't think your use of individual and
> collective serves to clarify the MOQ. It furthers your
> political agenda in the same way that conservatives of
> late have been so successful. I'm reminded of such
> victories as "the death tax" over "the estate tax."
> But such politcial wars of words do not make
> intellectual distinctions. They just color the terms
> with emotion which is not helpful here. Plus, as I
> said, we are talking about patterns of thought when we
> refer to intellectual patterns of value not patterns
> of individuals.
> 
> 
> >Politically,
> > the left tends to 
> > think in terms of the Collective welfare state
> > level, the right in 
> > terms of the Individual private property level.
> > There's little doubt 
> > about which is the higher on the evolutionary
> > ladder.
> 
> I never heard of these levels. This is certainly not
> Pirsig's MOQ.
> 
> If I had to classify property rights as a type of
> pattern of value I'd have to say it is a biological
> pattern of value since animals know mine from yours.
> (e.g. that other dog better not try to play with my
> dog's toy. He'll snap at him for sure.)
> 
> Platt, just because you like personal property as I do
> doesn't mean it has to be a higher level pattern. I
> like food, too. While I'm at it, where would we be
> without that merely inorganic pattern of gravity?
> 
> Regards,
> Steve