From: Peterfabriani@aol.com
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 01:39:26 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: Thanks for the welcome. I find this description irrelevant: Eudaimonia
in an Aristotelian sense is ordered by a rational methodology; whereas the
Moq fourth level includes methodologies and the rational methodology itself.
Aristotle here is inventing sociology. But Aristotelian sociology is not an
Art form as the Moq would have it.
> 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: Eudaimonia is Aristotle's chosen term for arte. This is rather like
choosing the term 'painter' for the bloke who painted the Sistine chapel?
> 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: In this, your response to my previous posting, you have ignored my
insistence that the good is superior to truth? You also fail to highlight my
insistence that truth is culturally relative.
> 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.
> Intelligence's 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: It is most encouraging to discover a philosopher who is so free. I am
happy to read this! How do you feel about my description of Intellect
including the rational?
> 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
Peter: Personal experience getting in the way here. I prefer books and music
to people infected with western cultural values.
Take care,
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 - 10:38:07 GMT