Hi Sam,
You wrote:
> I think we're in agreement! I am very much taken with the view of emotions
> as (at the intellectual level) being refinements of what has gone before.
> To my mind (and this is what I'm working up something on) the elements of
> character (eg courage, perseverance, compassion - virtues, in other words)
> are intellectually moderated emotions, and the building blocks of the self.
> So refinement of the emotions is firstly a social virtue (more moral in a
> straightforward sense - you're less likely to assault someone who annoys
> you) but beyond that it becomes an intellectual virtue - in other words it
> is impossible to see the truth clearly unless you are a person of good
> character!! (Think of the way that the scientific method depends upon a
> certain level of distancing from a person's own emotional reactions. That
> can only be achieved by someone at a certain stage of character
> development. However, this is taking me away from what I wanted to say in
> this post).
I couldn't agree with you more!
> Just a couple of things. You wrote:
>
> > No, I didn't mean to imply a moral hierarchy, such as philosophy is
> > better than physics. I was trying to make an analogy between areas of
> > knowledge and Pirsig's levels in order to clarify where I think certain
> > subjects belong, a question that has provoked considerable debate here
> > before. Pirsig claimed "nothing gets left out" of the four levels. So
> I
> > thought it might be helpful to show what I think gets put in and where.
> > Using departments in a university seemed a reasonable way to accomplish
> > this without going into endless, numbing detail.
> >
>
> I'm still not clear on what you mean by "where...certain subjects belong".
> Are you saying that there are different activities (all at the intellectual
> level) which take as their subject matter these different areas (at
> different levels)? If so, I'm quite happy with that.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. I apologize for not making myself
clear.
> Secondly, you asked: How does a fifth level of "art" grab you? This is
> something we've touched on before, but I can't remember exactly when
> either. But briefly I'm sympathetic to it, subject to how "art" is defined.
> A different way of putting it might be to talk about transcendence, or that
> which provokes feelings of transcendence within us - which is another way
> of talking about DQ. What exactly do you have in mind as "art"? And in what
> way would it function as a fifth level, analogous to the social and
> intellectual, as opposed to being purely DQ? Happy to pursue that one
> further.
We're definitely on the same page. I think transcendence applies to a
definition of "art" and that it is joined at the hip to DQ. You've raised the
question no one has been able to answer so far--how to make a level
out of what is so close to DQ as to almost be DQ itself? Until now,
though, I hadn't seen the problem quite so clearly. Thanks for brushing
aside some cobwebs. As for pursuing, I'm game any time. But I don't
have anything new to offer at the moment. Perhaps you, Marco, Bo or
someone else is ready to tackle the issue again. Pirsig enjoined us to
expand on the MOQ. Adding a harmonious fifth level would be a coup!
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST