From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 08:34:57 GMT
Hi Erin,
> I like how you are redifining the fourth level.
:O)
Pirsig says:
"The word "I" like the word "self" is one of the trickiest words in any
metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a
subject, a human mind. I believe there are number of philosophic systems,
notably Ayn Rand's "Objectivism," that call the "I" or "individual" the
central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ
says it is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic
Quality. I think that if you identify the "I" with the intellect and nothing
else you are taking an unusual position that may need some defending."
"A collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality"
Are these static patterns social level? I think they can be, but I also
think that there is a new agglomeration of static patterns at the fourth
level, formed by the fourth level virtues (most especially practical wisdom)
which can discount the third level patterns which form a 'self' - the bits
of us which crave social approval, power wealth and fame - and which form a
new integral 'self' which is able to perceive DQ. I think we all need a
socially functioning 'self', we also all need a higher fourth level self to
keep it in check. Are you familiar with transactional analysis? I think I'm
talking about a fully developed Adult as something which exists at the
fourth level, with the Parent/Child complex as a social self.
I think the transition from third level self to fourth level self is much of
what (historically) religious mysticism has been concerned with; I suspect
it is also what Nietzche is on about with his idea of the Ubermensch, but I
don't know Nietzche's work all that well (he's next on my reading list).
Under another aspect, I think it is also what St Paul is on about when he
talks about 'the glorious freedom of the children of God' - but now I'm
getting carried away! (I don't think it's an accident that I'm driving this
campaign; I don't think a Buddhist would have the same concern about
individuals).
Pirsig is also clear that it is not that an individual has third or fourth
level patterns, but that the third or fourth level patterns have the person.
I can't claim to have fully taken on board all the implications of that, but
it seems right to me.
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 10:12 PM
Subject: RE: MD Sophocles not Socrates
> When defining the fourth level came up I didn't really
> understand Marco's and Wim idea about making it
> about human rights but that idea makes more and more sense. But I think
> all my nagging thoughts is that it doesn't appear as a level
> anymore. I am not really clear what 'static latch' or 'level'
> really means now. I thought there was discrete aspect to a level but there
> isn't to 'self'.
> One other nagging thought is that I agree that a person
> self develops over time. But I have mixed feelings about the
> self becoming more and more defined.
> If seeking DQ is about freedom it seems inconsistent
> with a really defined self. Maybe not.
> I kind of had the same mixed feelings in hearing
> John B/Squonk/Wim talk about ego.
> Joseph Campell said something about hell being a big
> stiff ego and heaven a large loose one.
> If seeking DQ is seeking freedom then a really defined self sometimes
> seems inconsistent? But when I hear Wim talk resistance of ego being an
ego
> activity that makes sense also.
> So I guess I need to think about it some more.
> I think its kind of interesting because it seems like
> it might underlie other seemingly unrelated things---
> (like Wim being bothered by Paco's repeated name change or Squonk
> concern for status, people attaching their names to ideas,
> etc.)
>
> To ego or not to ego that is the question?
>
> erin
>
>
>
>
>
> >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
>
>
>
> 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 - 13:33:33 GMT