[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Brujo story)

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve,

> > > [Steve]
> > > What intellectual patterns won? I saw that whole
> > story as being set
> > > pretty much in the social level.
> > > 
> > > [Platt]
> > > The brujo made an intellectual connection with the
> > white man:
> > > 
> > > "The brujo had shown he could deal successfully
> > with the one tribe that
> > > could easily wipe them out any time it wanted to.
> > It wasn't just a sweet
> > > singing voice that made him governor of Zuni. He
> > had real political
> > > clout."
> 
> Steve says:
> 
> That's your evidence for an intellectual connection
> and your whole theory about the brujo story supporting
> your SOLAQI-like MD legacy-seeking improvement upon
> Pirsig's work, i.e the intellectual = individual
> versus social = the collective?

In Chapter 9 you'll find other evidence of the brujo's intellectual 
connection with the whites:

"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."

What do you suppose the brujo valued in the way of his new neighbors?
Their social values? Hardly. The whites were socially out to eliminate 
his tribe. No. He valued their intellectual ways as opposed to those of 
his tribe. That's why he was able to "deal successfully with them." You 
don't deal successfully by singing songs and otherwise acting like a 
Zuni nut.

Also be sure to read and absorb Pirsig's statement, "A tribe can change 
its values only person by person and someone has to be first."  -- a 
ringing endorsement of the vital role of the individual in changing 
collective patterns. 

> I just reread ch 9 (you know, the chapter where he
> introduces his static-Dynamic split as the first cut
> of Quality), and I decided that it really is about the
> static-Dynamic split as the first cut of Quality
> rather than a conflict bewteen the intellectual and
> social levels since he never mentions that in the
> entire chapter.

I have no objection whatsoever to Pirsig's initial Dynamic/static 
"first cut." But,  I thought we were discussing the definition and 
relationship of the moral levels. 

> I am really disappointed that you continue to cling to
> your statement that the point of the brujo story is to
> show that the brujo representing the intellectual
> level in the form of an "individual" wins out over the
> the social level which you like to think of as the
> collective, and that you provided that quote as
> evidenence without any detectable irony. (Were you
> being ironic?)

I'm disappointed you don't accept my point of view. So what's new?

> It seems to me that if Pirsig's point was about
> intellectual-social conflict he would have been
> explicit about it. He never beats around the bush with
> that sort of thing.

Right. He says only " a living being" -- an individual -- can respond 
to Dynamic Quality. That's pretty clear to me. What is there about 
emphasizing the "individual" that upsets you so much.? 

> Come on, Platt, It won't kill you to admit it. Repeat
> after me, "I, Platt Holden, was as wrong about the
> Individual level in general and the brujo story in
> particular as Bo was about SOLAQI. Further, I will no
> longer seek to leave a legacy by trying to improve
> upon Pirig's MOQ by renaming or redrescribing levels
> and will be satisfied as having the argumentative
> tactic known as the Platteral Shift as my only legacy
> in this discussion group." ;-)
> 
> In all seriousness, though I really think you have
> gone off the deep end with this Individual level thing
> the way Bo did with SOLAQI, I agree with Pirsig's
> statement that the MOQ has had no better friend.
> Without you I think this discussion group would have
> degenerated long ago into New Agey nonsense in its
> attempt to understand DQ. With your conservative
> views, you are the rock that we sharpen are arguments
> against. When the conversation lulls you are always
> ready with a quote or provacative statement to get the
> discussion going again. That is your legacy as far as
> I am concerned. 

Well I ain't dead yet, so maybe it's premature to talk about my legacy. 
But I appreciate your kind words about "keeping the discussion going."
There has to be one brujo in the group.:-)  Luckily there have been 
many others with Ham and Craig being the latest "contrarians" to the 
accepted New Age, hippie, radical left-wing wisdom.

Regards,
Platt