From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 18:03:45 BST
Hi Platt, all those interested in my campaign!
The joy of this discussion (for me) is that the questions are forcing me to
clarify my proposal. It could be that clarification goes so far that the
proposal becomes transparent and vanishes into thin air, but I hope not.
Just a reminder - I do accept that 'intellectual' can be defined in such a
way as to resolve my problems, but I think that doing so would make
'intellectual' into a very specific term of art within the MoQ and change
its meaning from its normal use. I don't think that's what Pirsig is trying
to do; moreover I think that 'individual' (or possibly another substitute -
see my conclusion) is both clearer to understand and less misleading about
the
nature of the fourth level. But on with the show. I think if I deal with one
key criticism, it will be enough to move us forward.
Platt said:
> This sparked the question, "What is the vehicle of ALL evolution if not
> individual choices, whether by a particle or an atom or a cell or a hive
or
> a person?" In other words, at every stage of evolution, an individual had
> to be first....there's nothing unique about human beings who are the
current
> individual responders to DQ, carrying on where sensitive atoms,
> molecules and the like left off ages ago.
and
> ...if we accept Sam's proposal of a
> social level followed by an individual level, we are in a sense adopting a
> very familiar and not very instructive whole/parts, one/many division
In some ways this is similar to DMB's original criticism about scalability
(which I neglected to answer): "BOTH collectivity and individuality appear
at every level."
Firstly, I agree that 'individuality' understood purely as the ability of an
entity to choose is not unique to the fourth level. At each level the
response to DQ is made by some specific unit, which can be described as the
'individual' unit at that level, whether atom, molecule, cell, plant, social
unit or whatever. My proposal is _not_ simply that human beings qua human
being are 'individual' in this sense. The difference lies - as is inevitable
with the MoQ - in the nature of the dominant value.
I think we would agree that the MoQ describes different levels which respond
to different types of value at each level; put differently, that are
regulated by different 'laws'. So the inorganic level is regulated by the
laws of physics, biological by laws of natural selection etc. And the later
levels include the former. In MoQish, the different levels are dominated by
different values - so in the first level the only available value is that of
inorganic processes, in the second level the values relate to biological
flourishing, in the third level the values relate to societal flourishing.
And at each level there is a marvellous dynamic diversity of response to
those dominant values. Within each level, the 'choosing unit' exercises
dynamic freedom according to its position within the evolved complex. So,
for example, a biological cell develops a new type of cell wall which gives
it an evolutionary advantage over other cells - this is a DQ innovation
describable in the values of biology. Similarly a human being - a brujo?
Moses? - develops a new legal system which allows their society to flourish
more successfully. The DQ innovation of that new legal system is valuable in
terms of its ability to foster social flourishing, so although it is a human
being doing the innovation, the dominant value is social value. (I think
this is Platt's second point that I copied in above)
The question for us is what is the dominant value of the fourth level? What
are the values within which DQ provokes a particular choosing unit to
respond? And what is the nature of the choosing unit? (For clearly, the
choosing unit at each level is an 'individual' of some sort or another).
Platt states: 'Where intellect dominates, the byword for individuals is "Is
it logical?" and/or "Is it scientific?" ' I agree with this; I agree that
this is the nature of intellectual domination; that this is what is commonly
understood by 'intellectual' and, moreover, that this is what Pirsig has in
mind in describing the fourth level of the MoQ as intellectual. So the
values of the fourth level, on this conception, are precisely intellectual
values - whether something is logical and/or scientific. The nature of the
choosing unit is intellectual choice (understood I'm not sure how - it would
be interesting to see an explanation of how this actually happens, as a
defence of Pirsig's position depends on this being possible. I happen to
think it is not possible, but that's another thread...) It is this
conception of the fourth level that I believe to be misconceived.
What is missing? Is it just an argument about words? Some lines of
thought to provoke questioning, then a more substantive proposal from me.
My first concerns about the naming of the levels came back in January when I
wrote about marriage, and how it doesn't seem to be fully resolvable into
biological/social/intellectual components. Using Pirsig's method, if you
take all those elements away, is there anything left? I think that there
is - not in each and every case, but in many cases that people are familiar
with. When someone is bereaved, the prospect of 'replacing' a person makes
no sense - yet it would be possible to replace (or even improve!) the
biological, social and intellectual qualities of the person lost.
Secondly, consider a discipline like psychotherapy. Is this simply to make
people socially well-adjusted and/or intellectually capable? Or are there
aims, eg Jung's theory of individuation, which resolve around richer
conceptions of what human beings are capable of?
Thirdly, consider music. Is music purely about intellectual value, or is
there something missing if music is assessed purely in quasi-mathematical
terms? (Wittgenstein: "it has been impossible for me to say one word in my
book about what music has meant to me in my life. How then can I hope to be
understood?")
Fourthly, poetry. Is poetry fully understood in logical terms? Or as a
social function? Surely not.
And I could go on: excellence in sporting endeavour; opera or ballet; art
and architecture; hosting an outstanding dinner party with close friends;
watching a beloved child win a prize at school. Are all these excellences
resolvable into biological/social/intellectual categories. In particular,
are the elements that we consider valuable about them, once we take away the
elements that are valued by the biological and social levels, fully
understood or intelligible as 'intellectual' values (remember: logical or
scientifically acceptable)?
My argument is that the dominant values of the fourth level (those against
which the Quality of actions are judged; those which determine what can be
'static latched' and what are discarded) are not reducible to 'intellect',
and that the attempt to do so - although of ancient standing - is harmful.
So now my proposal: instead of talking about 'individual' - because that can
lead to the confusion mentioned at the beginning of this post, which I hope
to clear up - let us talk about the fourth level as the 'eudaimonic' level.
When the transition away from the social level was being accomplished -
which, it seems to be generally accepted, can be traced back to fifth
century Athens - the big debate was about _eudaimonia_ which means, roughly,
human flourishing, human wellbeing, "living well and doing well". This
debate did not exist before this time - it could not, because all the values
were social level values, and the debate only makes sense in an environment
where it is possible to assess social level values from a new perspective.
All the excellences which were enumerated above were considered by different
thinkers, and were each considered to be a part of the good life. Until
Socrates came along. The problem is that attachment to these various
excellences - like loving a specific person; spending time developing a
musical skill; delight in bodily achievement - were subject to change and
decay over time, and consequently, those who spent time devoted to such
activities exposed themselves to the pain of loss. And the pain of loss
suggested that these excellences weren't quite such a constituent part of
the good life after all. Socrates (as presented by Plato, especially in the
Republic) argued that this pain and loss could not be a part of the good
life (could not be part of _eudaimonia_) and that the pursuit of the good
life needed to travel in a different direction - the life of the intellect.
It was through the development of the intellect, and contemplation of
intellectual values, pre-eminently mathematics, that the good life was
achieved. All that was associated with emotional qualities (especially love)
was to be repudiated in order to achieve a state of unsullied contemplation
of the eternal Forms. This notion was tremendously successful - it is the
root of the 'myth of redemptive truth', if I understand Matt's presentation
of Rorty correctly, and pretty much all western metaphysics.
And I think it is a delusion. Aristotle was the first one to point out what
a nonsense it was, and he developed a systematic solution which had at its
heart the notion of the virtues (arete) - those excellences which the human
being could develop which would enable them to live a full human life. In
particular, the necessity of risk - that some elements of the good life can
only be achieved if you are prepared to take the risk of failure and loss.
For Aristotle is was clear that the ability to develop the virtues - and
therefore to achieve _eudaimonia_, the good and flourishing life - depended
upon education and effort. It required emotional maturity - wisdom. Instead
of the Socratic contemplation of abstract universals, 'Being mortal, let us
think mortal thoughts'.
So to return specifically to the MoQ, my contention is that the values which
dominate the fourth level, which are separate from social level values
(which see human beings as useful only in so far as they are a productive
social unit) are the values of _eudaimonia_ - and the intellectual values
are one component within a balanced eudaimonic life.
So what is the 'choosing unit'? Talk of individuality can be misleading, but
it centres upon a developed consideration of alternatives, and an emotional
maturity in discriminating between alternatives. It is an emergent property;
it is not 'either/or', it is a matter of more or less. Crucially, although
such an individual may begin within a social structure, and carry out
actions that could be exhaustively understood in social terms, a person who
had achieved some level of _eudaimonia_ could NOT be understood merely as a
part within a whole, or a one amongst the many. The criteria used to
distinguish such an individual changes - and that is the point. To be a
fully functioning individual, in the sense that I have been arguing for, is
actually to be a person in whom _eudaimonia_ has taken root - the ability to
operate at the fourth level is something to be achieved, through training
and education and general moral development; it is not something which just
comes from being a member of the species. So let the debate be about calling
the fourth level the 'eudaimonic' level, not the individual level, as that
will make the terms of the debate clearer.
I believe that the values of the fourth level - those within which different
actions can static latch, the arena within which DQ can operate - can best
be understood as those values which support full human flourishing -
_eudaimonia_. Intellectual flourishing is one aspect of that full human
flourishing, but there are areas of human flourishing - most prominently,
art, music, poetry, friendship - which are not reducible to either social
level values or intellectual values. They represent high quality
achievements (and practices) which are not resolvable to either social
quality or logical/scientific quality. They represent the best of humanity.
And _that_ is what I think is missing when we talk of 'intellect' being the
fourth level.
Thanks for your time.
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
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 - 10:38:03 GMT