[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 

> You said to me, "As you stated above, the levels are
> interdependent and include one 
> another to one degree or another."
> 
> That is definitely not what I meant. The levels can't
> include other levels. They are discrete.

It seems strange to me to say on the one hand that a human being 
includes all levels, but then on the other hand the levels themselves 
can't include any other level. To my mind, the social level includes 
vestiges of the inorganic and biological levels, and the individual 
level includes vestiges of all lower levels. For purposes of 
definition, however, I agree that the levels are discrete as Pirsig 
defines them in his SODV paper. Maybe you can suggest a better way to 
resolve the discrete/inclusive character of the levels. 

> Platt continues, "Thus some individuals are dominated 
> by biological values (terrorists), some by social
> values (socialists) 
> and some by intellectual values (rational
> empiricists). I identify the 
> levels like Pirsig does, by their dominance or
> subservience to levels 
> below and above."

[Steve] 
> Me:I agree that it can be useful to think about
> whether a person seems to be more or less influenced
> by a certain level's patterns as compared to another
> person, but I can't see how that defines the levels
> themselves.

For purposes of definition I agree the levels are discrete as in 
Pirsig's SODV paper. For purposes of further understanding the levels I 
introduce the human element.

[Platt previously]
> "Thus the individual level is dominated by rational 
> empiricists who refuse to let social values determine
> their reality but 
> rely instead in large part on personal experience and
> independent  
> judgments. These are the "show me" contrarians who
> demand freedom from 
> what "everybody thinks"and thus are the catalytic
> agents for 
> evolutionary change -- like the brujo.

Platt