From: Peterfabriani@aol.com
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 23:20:48 GMT
Hello Sam,
May I jump in?
Sam: My central thesis is: the fourth level of the MoQ is best described as a
'eudaimonic' level and not an 'intellectual' level.
Peter: So we have, 1. Inorganic, 2. Biological, 3. Social, 4. Eudaimonic?
Sam: 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'.
Peter: I hate to be abrupt but this is not at all helpful in my humble view.
Aristotle used reason to attempt to encapsulate a social good, but social
good is not a reasoned expression of it. Social good is level 3 and while
rationality is a particular tool in intellect's box of tricks.
I feel your problem is in not understanding the nature or role of the
rational. That may sound dreadfully arrogant but I do not wish this to appear
so. I understand your philosophical training may be the source of your value
trap, but I don't know how to shock you out of it without sounding nasty?
The problem is one of truth over good. Full stop. That's it. End of story.
Too simple? Why yes, the 'too simpleness' of the matter can be very hard to
see?
Sam: 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?
Peter: This is a prime example of your misunderstanding of Intellect as
rationality only. Rationality is not the be all and end all of intellect; the
manipulation of symbols does not have to follow daft rational rules.
Intelligences make dynamic choices - truth is relative very often to social
paradigms.
Sam: 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.
Peter: Intelligence is most certainly rooted in social patterns and the MoQ
does not challenge this?
Sam: 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'.
Peter: Intellect includes the rational sounds better. Giving an account of
precisely what a flourishing human life is or should be is an intellectual
pursuit. Living a fulfilled and happy life may, in my view, require having
very little to do with one's culture, if one feels one's culture to be low
quality?
Hope there is something in this of value?
Peter.
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