From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 15:54:56 GMT
Hi Sam:
Thanks for the explanation of "eudaimonia."I still think it's a non-starter
as descriptive of a fourth level following on the heels of such familiar
words as inorganic, biological and social--at least for general
understanding. Maybe "eudaimonia" will appeal to professional
philosophers, but why limit yourself to that audience? Surely there's a
better word to signify what you see as a better fourth level in the MoQ --
a word that doesn't add a false note of pretentiousness.
> Psychotherapy was just one example (although not being a science doesn't
> invalidate it from the perspective I'm arguing for. Do you reject it as a
> whole?).
Based on personal experience, I do reject it. I subscribe to Pirsig's
revealing and not so flattering comments about psychiatry in Lila.
>A specific question for you, given your love of art. I was thinking
> about Rembrandt's portraiture, especially the later self-portraits. Clearly
> work as a portrait artist can be cashed out in social terms, but how would
> you characterise the difference between a Rembrandt portrait and one done
> by a jobbing artist, assuming that the latter had an adequate technical
> proficiency? The difference I would guess would be the depth of vision or
> psychological acuity that the Rembrandt would display, and I think we would
> both agree that the difference couldn't be cashed out in social terms. How
> would you characterise the 'extra' from Rembrandt (ie the fourth level or
> even DQ/mystical stuff)?
I key my response to the difference between Rembrandt and a jobbing
artist to the following from Lila:
"If you think about this question long enough you will come to see that
the same kind of division between Dynamic Quality and static quality
that exists in the field of morals also exists in the field of art. The first
good, that made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality.
Dynamic Quality comes as a sort of surprise. What the record did was
weaken for a moment your existing static patterns in such a way that
the Dynamic Quality all around you shone through. It was free, without
static forms. The second good, the kind that made you want to
recommend it to a friend, even when you had lost your own enthusiasm
for it, is static quality. Static quality is what you normally expect." (9)
Rembrandt has the effect of making DQ "shine through" to more people
over more years than the jobber.
Regarding your proposal to expand the intellectual level to include more
human attributes, Pirsig took into consideration what you seem to be
driving at when he wrote:
"Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He
supposed you could call it a "code of Art" or something like that, but art
is usually thought of as such a frill that that title undercuts its
importance. The morality of the brujo in Zuni—that was Dynamic
morality." (13)
But, as before, I'm open to different interpretations of the fourth level and
still think that emphasis on "individual" can enhance that level's
meaning without necessarily changing its name from "intellectual." After
all, there's no such thing as "collective intellect," as this site so amply
demonstrates. :-)
Platt
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