From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 31 2002 - 09:22:12 GMT
Hi Erin,
I think that questions of 'self' have the potential for descending into
semantic quicksand, for reasons that you and others point out. Although I do
still think that, properly understood, self (or 'individual') is what I'm
talking about. It does exist - or rather, it can be described in terms of
each level. I think that really what I'm getting at with talk of eudaimonic
is that the dominant value of the fourth level is not truth but the
flourishing of unique human beings. That flourishing is most specifically
not social quality - honour, wealth, fame, which as Wim has pointed out are
all relative to other people - but rather a full blossoming of an individual
character: someone with artistic potential fulfils themselves as an artist;
someone with mathematical potential fulfils themselves as a mathematician;
someone with sporting potential fulfils themselves as an athlete. The
boundary set by human rights is something that preserves the capacity for
this human flourishing, it doesn't just preserve the capacity to exercise
the intellect.
I think that the pursuit of fourth level quality is the pursuit of DQ,
because our sense of self grows over time - in pursuit of DQ. I just think
that there is a static latch of a 'personality' or 'character', that
persists over time, that has certain qualities - excellences - and values,
which can only be described at the fourth level, and which is inaccurately
described as the intellect.
I'm not sure I've fully understood your baseball analogy, but there is a
correspondence between achieving eudaimonia and scoring a home run.....
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erin N." <enoonan@kent.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:01 AM
Subject: RE: MD Sophocles not Socrates
> SAM: There might be all sorts of ways to explore how
> >Maslow's levels interact with the MoQ - has that been done, do you know?
> >Perhaps 'the values through which we understand and appraise
> >self-actualisation' might be a description for fourth level quality. It
> >would be interesting to pursue this further.
>
> Sam,
> A person's conception of their self differs for each level.
> For the intellectual level your self is your intellectual value.
> It seems that if you make the intellectual level about
> self-actualization then its that individual level claim in disguise.
> Wasn't DMB/Wim's point that there is a "self" aspect for each level?(may
have
> misinterpreted that) I am thinking that your eudaimonic idea is more about
> seeking DQ then about defining the intellectual level. But what if
eudaimonic
> is more about seeking an authentic self that cannot be defined or limited
by
> any of the four levels.
>
> Analogy --baseball field with intellectual level as homebase
> eudaimonic seems more like either a pitcher's mound and
> the batter running the base. (but with pitcher and the batter
> somehow the same person)
>
> P.S. okay the REAL problem i have with your eudaimonic idea
> is that I can never remember how to spell it :-P
>
> erin
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 - 10:38:08 GMT