From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 11:35:53 GMT
Hi all,
As my position has developed a little in the course of the discussion, I
thought it may be of benefit to re-present my argument in summary form, in
the interests of clarity, and outline what I think are the most significant
objections to it.
My central thesis is: the fourth level of the MoQ is best described as a
'eudaimonic' level and not an 'intellectual' level.
[Some definitional points. I take intellectual to mean 'logical and
scientific reasoning, especially understood as separated from emotional
input'. I take eudaimonic to mean 'relevant to human flourishing, to 'living
well and doing well', to the achievement of a high Quality life'. Lastly,
this thesis does not take issue with the overall framework of the MoQ, that
is, an understanding of reality as founded on Quality (value) which can be
understood as separated into four static levels and one dynamic force
driving evolutionary development.]
There are two main concerns that I have with the 'standard account' of the
MoQ.
1. Describing the fourth level as 'intellectual' implies that much of
specifically human quality is classified as social. This seems either
Procrustean or a major platypi generator. Those elements of human life which
do not fall naturally in the field of logic or scientific thinking are
deemed to be social level products (that is, putting it differently, their
quality is primarily assessed in social terms). So: a Shakespeare play has
primarily social value; such intellectual value as it contains can be
abstracted away from the dramatic context without diminution of Quality.
Similarly, psychotherapy can be exhaustively analysed in terms of social
value (making well-adjusted citizens) and intellectual value (fostering the
ability to carry out logical and scientific reasoning). I think that this is
a distortion of human Quality - it is a poor understanding of human life.
Indeed, my point is that the specifically human (the eudaimonic) is excluded
from consideration in this analysis.
2. The understanding of dynamic evolution is incoherent where the fourth
level is understood as intellect. It is a matter of scientific fact that our
logical faculties are unable to exercise choice, and there is therefore an
explanatory gap in the standard account - what is the 'choosing unit' of the
fourth level, the equivalent of the cell or the social unit? In contrast,
where the fourth level is understood as the eudaimonic level, the choosing
unit is a human being of developed character, whose decisions are informed
by an interplay of developed reason and emotional maturity, and who is
therefore able to exercise judgement (and who has therefore transcended the
social level).
I happen to believe that the eudaimonic account is a better description of
the historical origin of the fourth level, but I don't think that could be
accepted without a prior acceptance of the above two points.
As I see it at the moment, a 'knock down' objection to my claim would take
one of the following forms (this isn't meant to preclude other arguments!!):
1. Pirsig's description of the fourth level as intellect includes
non-rational and non-scientific understandings; that is, Pirsig's account
includes emotional maturity as a constituent part; 'intellect' includes the
human flourishing that I refer to; and therefore my objection is just a
question of semantics, a 'bickering about words'.
2. Human flourishing (eudaimonia) is just a high quality static latch within
the social level; eudaimonic qualities just refer to high quality social
units; eudaimonic values are simply particular types of social value. The
intellect is still at a level above all this. Problem #2 is solvable.
3. Human flourishing is an epiphenomena and an illusion, it has no intrinsic
Quality. Where it is not an illusion it is the direct experience of DQ.
To substantiate 1 requires textual analysis, and it may well be true (I
happen to think it is the view of the narrator in ZMM; part of my claim is
that in Lila Pirsig has moved away from the understanding in ZMM; in many
ways I would be absolutely delighted if I was shown to be wrong about this).
I think that both 2 and 3 are potentially logically coherent; in particular
a discussion of 2 might be quite interesting, and illuminating about the
nature of the levels as we understand them. I think I would still consider
that it was a deficient account of our life and therefore, to that extent, I
would become a 'dissenter' from the MoQ, which I'm not at the moment.
As always, all feedback welcome!
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 - 10:38:06 GMT