From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 08:06:53 GMT
Hi Peter,
Of course you can jump in!! The more the merrier!
>
> Peter: So we have, 1. Inorganic, 2. Biological, 3. Social, 4. Eudaimonic?
>
Yes.
> 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.
>
You'll need to expand on why you think eudaimonia is a social good. Are you
going for answer #2 that I outlined yesterday?
> Peter: 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?
>
That's not arrogant - especially when you blanket it in humble noises!! My
response to this would be 'how do you determine the truth'? Somewhere back
in the archives I articulate my view that truth is a species of the good. I
think Pirsig also says this somewhere (ie the MoQ is just the best account
so far, until something better, ie more good, comes along).
> 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.
>
I've said a number of times that my conception of 'intellect' may be too
narrow - but my worries are that this is (possibly unconsciously) Pirsig's
conception also. With a broader account of 'intellect' I have no problem
with using that as the label for the fourth level - see my post to Wim
earlier today. This is a type of answer #1.
> Peter: You are off the track here Sam?
>
???
> Peter: 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?
In a broad sense of 'intellect' - yes. And yes to the second half too,
although I'm not sure it is possible to engage with the fourth level if the
culture is of too low quality.
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