From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 22:04:06 GMT
Dear Sam,
You wrote 22/10 10:11 +0100:
'Seems like ages since we discussed directly!'
Only 4,5 months... when you didn't reply to my 3/6 22:53 +0200 post in the
'Static and Dynamic aspects of religion and mysticism' thread any more. (-;
You wrote:
'Firstly, I like your definition ['Intellectual evolution can be seen as a
process by which weak Dynamic forces at an individual level discover
stratagems for overcoming huge static social forces at a collective level.']
very much - why wouldn't I? It hinges on the "individual" not the reason.'
Glad you like it, but it was not meant as a definition of the 4th level (but
as a description of its relations with lower levels: I use 'weak Dynamic
forces at an individual level' here essentially as a description of
individual biological entities). Nor do I agree that it hinges on the
'individual more than on the type of stratagems discovered.
Mind you that it would not be a proper definition to say: 'the individual
level is defined by processes by which weak Dynamic forces at an individual
level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static social forces at a
collective level.' (The term 'individual' should not be repeated.)
I am glad that by now (in your 26/10 18:03 post) you have stopped confusing
the 'many/one' distinction with the distinction between 3rd and 4th level.
('[David B.]"BOTH collectivity and individuality appear at every level."
[Sam] Firstly, I agree that "individuality" understood purely as the ability
of an entity to choose is not unique to the fourth level.')
To what extent does that mean a retraction of (22/10 18:54 +0100):
'I see ... the defining aspect of becoming an individual as the capacity for
independent judgement'?
How 'independent' are these judgements when we can recognize 4th level
patterns of values in them? How do we distinguish between dependence on
social patterns of values and dependence on 4th level patterns of values?
Your definition of the 4th level hinging on the role of individuals in it
and your definition of individuals hinging on their independence from the
3th level constitute a circular argument, given the fact that levels are
discrete in the MoQ.
I experience a lot of value in defining individuals at the 4th level as
actors capable to judge independently from social patterns of value, BUT in
my view that precludes using the role of individuals in the 4th level as a
defining characteristic of it.
In reply to my 21/10 21:59 +0200:
'can't the level be called BOTH "intellectual" AND "individual" without much
need for bickering'
you wrote 22/10 10:11 +0100:
'Do you really think that all I am doing is "bickering"?'
You are making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the 4th
level ... in an unnecessary context of bickering over its name. And ... I
DID recognize the need for SOME bickering. (-:
I agree that reason/logic/intellect is/are not the only tool(s) for
'educating' the individual and discerning our individual 4th level values.
See my 3/6 22:53 +0200 post in the 'Static and Dynamic aspects of religion
and mysticism' thread ... Sensation, thought, emotion and intuition all have
an essential role at the 4th level (in the case of emotion and intuition:
their conscious outcomes rather than the processes leading to these
outcomes). In the course of 4th level evolutionary progress they get their
refined forms of observation, reason, empathy and revelation.
That doesn't imply for me that the 4th level needs renaming: 'intellectual
level' just means for me 'the level at which intellect operates (among other
"tools")'. It doesn't mean that 'intellect' or related concepts exhaustively
define that level. Neither does 'social level' imply for me that all
'individual' phenomena are excluded from that level. It is for me the level
at which (among other phenomena) societies are created and maintained.
You wrote 26/10 18:03 +0100:
'When the transition away from the social level was being
accomplished -which, it seems to be generally accepted, can be traced back t
o fifth century Athens- the big debate was about "eudaimonia" which means,
roughly, human flourishing, human wellbeing, "living well and doing well".'
You can be excused for ignoring that I don't accept that there was a
transition away from the social level in fifth century BC Athens. For me
there was no 'transition to' but only an 'addition of' the 4th level and
this addition started between 50.000 and 100.000 ago. I have discussed this
extensively with Bo and David B., without convincing them.
It seems to me however that this 'general acceptance' doesn't include Pirsig
either:
In chapter 30 of 'Lila' Pirsig traces back the transition from social to
intellectual patterns of value, from 'mythos' to 'logos'. He deduces that
rituals, from which the first intellectual truths could have been deduced,
probably were the connecting link between the social and intellectual levels
of evolution. (p. 442 of my Bantam paperback, end of chapter 30:) 'He could
only guess how far back this ritual-cosmos relationship went, maybe fifty or
hundred thousand years. ... stone age people were probably bound by ritual
all day long ... so much so that the division between "ritual" and
"knowledge" becomes indistinct. In cultures without books ritual seems to be
a public library for teaching the young and preserving common values and
information'.
When Pirsig writes about Socrates at the beginning of chapter 22 of 'Lila',
he is not writing about THE transition away from the social level, but about
AN evolutionary transformation among the three he mentions. According to my
definitions of the levels he only describes changes within the 4th level
there. What he writes about 'intellect' becoming independent of 'society'
and about a shift from 'social' domination of 'intellect' to 'intellectual'
domination of 'society' is in my opinion not consistent with the
'discreteness' of the levels which he postulates in chapter 12. It is
confusing and I try do without such ideas about relations between reified
levels in my version of the MoQ.
Trying to locate the addition of the 4th level (or the transition away from
the 3th level in your terminology) at a specific place and moment in time
(and drawing conclusions from that about how to define and name the level)
is not a very sophisticated method I think. Recognition that every human
being (that is not mentally handicapped) experiences this
addition/transition somewhere between birth and adulthood is a better method
I think. I agree that 'emotional maturity' is indeed an important threshold.
But should we say that '4th level values are added to someone' or rather
that 'someone is added to 4th level patterns of values'?
I'd say that it is not people or societies that 'become' 4th level patterns
of values (that wrongly reifies patterns of values), but people or societies
that start experiencing 4th level patterns of values (their experience
bringing them into being).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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