From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Oct 19 2002 - 17:12:34 BST
Sam and all MOQers:
Sam said:
So my thesis is this: the fourth level needs to be understood as the level
of the individual, not the level of the intellectual (the former *contains*
the latter as one constituent part) and therefore we need to focus on
Sophocles, not Socrates.
DMB says:
I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The word Pirsig
chose for the 4th level is "intellectual" and calling it anything else will
only cause confusion among the participants and disortion of the MOQ. On top
of that, the idea just doesn't hold up. The scientific method, for example,
depends upon standard practices, peer review and the publication of the
findings. In other words, science requires a collective effort. On the other
hand, all the cultures in the world contain myths of "the hero's journey",
which is a journey by an individual who travels out beyond the ordinary
world to achieve some great deed. So clearly, there are some very real and
profound cases where intellectual level needs collectivity and the social
level honors individuality. There are some interesting and important reasons
for making a distinction between collective and individual features of
things, but that distinction has very little to do with the differences
between levels. BOTH collectivity and individuality appear at every level.
Atoms are individual things, but are often part of a molecule. Molecules are
sometimes parts of a cell and so on. In fact, I would challenge you to think
of anything that is not both collective and individual. This dual role is
held by everything and is just a basic feature of reality.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:59 GMT