[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 

> Here are some of the things that Pirsig has said about the intellectual
> level where I don't think it would make any sense to substitute
> "individual" for "intellectual":

Here are my interpretations of what Pirsig said that led me to the 
individual level conclusion:

> 'After the beginning of history inorganic, biological, social and
> intellectual patterns are found existing together in the same person. I
> think the conflicts mentioned here are intellectual conflicts in which
> one side clings to an intellectual justification of existing social
> patterns and the other side intellectually opposes the existing social
> patterns. A social pattern which would be unaware of the next higher
> level would be found among prehistoric people and the higher primates
> when they exhibit social learning that is not genetically hard-wired but
> yet is not symbolic.'

"Intellectual justification" implies thinking by individuals vs. social 
patterns. 

> 'In the MOQ, laws are a species of intellectual
> patterns that are associated with a lot of social
> authority and are slow to change.' Lila's Child

Laws are introduced by a single individual and later adopted by others. 
"Someone has to be first."

> 'My statement that "Both the genius and the mentally
> retarded person are at the social level" is intended
> to refute the statement that "the genius appears to be
> on a higher evolutionary level." A person who holds an
> idea is a social entity, no matter what ideas he
> holds. The ideas he holds are an intellectual entity,
> no matter who holds them.' Lila's Child

Note in the both examples the use of the word "he," an individual. But, 
this is by far your strongest argument.

> 'Intellect is simply thinking' Lila's Child

Animals don't think, societies don't think, only human individuals 
think.

> Annotation 29 from LC p506:
> "The MOQ, as I understand it, denies the existence of a "self" that is
> independent of inorganic, biological, social, or intellectual patterns. 
> There is no "self" that contains these patterns.  These patterns contain
> the self.  This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and
> scientific knowledge.  In Zen, there is reference to "big self" and
> "small self."  Small self is the patterns.  Big Self is Dynamic
> Quality."

I accept without hesitation that patterns contain the individual or 
vice-versa.  

> Note 32. "since the MOQ states that consciousness (i.e. intellectual
> patterns) is the the collection and manipulations of symbols, created in
> the brain, that stands for patterns of experience . . ."

"Created in the brain" Whose brain? An individual's of course.

> Note 140. "The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four parts:
> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual."

As said, no problem with dividing the individual into parts. But you 
must presume a single entity, an individual, to talk about its parts.

> Note 25. "For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say that the intellectual
> level is the same as mind."

No such thing as a social mind emerging from a social brain. 
Intellectual level emerges from individual minds emerging from the 
individual brains. 

As for my emphasis on the individual being just a "conservative 
perspective," I thought it was liberals who champion individual rights 
such as free speech, freedom of the press, trial by jury, etc. Where 
have I gone wrong?

Regards,
Platt