From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 03:01:56 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: "Elizaphanian" <Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Individuality
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:27:03 -0000
>
>Hello Marco,
>
>Thank you for some stimulating feedback. I think we do have some
>perspectives in common!
>
>I'd like to 1) give a few comments on your post, 2) describe my present
>understanding of 'individual', and 3) make some concluding remarks about my
>'campaign'.
>
>1.1 Pirsig is explicit in rejecting anything non-human as an example of
>'social level' activity. In Lila's Child :"In the MOQ all organisms are
>objective. They exist in the material world. All societies are subjective.
>They exist in the mental world. Again, the distinction is very sharp. For
>example, the "President of the U.S." is a social pattern. No objective
>scientific instrument can distinguish a President of the U.S. from anyone
>else.... This is a stretch that seems to destroy the meaning of the word
>"society." One could say "an atom is a society of electrons and protons,"
>but that weakens the meaning of the word without gaining anything....Using
>the MOQ description of biology as objective and society as subjective, it
>is
>clear that sheep are biological. A herd of sheep is also biological.... One
>can also call ants and bees "social" insects, but for purposes of precision
>in the MOQ, social patterns should be defined as human and subjective.
>Unlike cells and bees and ants, they cannot be detected with an objective
>scientific instrument. For example, there is no objective scientific
>instrument that can distinguish between a king and commoner, because the
>difference is social." Whether this is the best way to think through the
>MoQ
>is an interesting question (can the 'social' elements in a beehive be
>detected by a 'scientific' instrument? In a way that human social behaviour
>cannot?).
Hi Marco and Sam!
Bees are not social level patterns of value; they are biological. What bees
think about the world would constitute a bee's social patterns of value and
can we ever know what a bee thinks of the taste of nectar (or what a
cockroach thinks about the taste of eggs)?
>
>Pirsig writes (again in Lila's Child): "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." [BTW Traditional
>Christianity says that the self cannot be possessed and is ultimately
>unknowable. Similar, but different.]
>
>The static patterns can be described, and science is starting to show how.
>This is what I take from Damasio's work (see my post of 7/6/01, 'Emotions
>revisited'); from that post, Damasio "sees the constantly refreshed picture
>of the internal body state as the original source for a sense of self: 'our
>experiences have a consistent perspective' rooted in 'a relatively stable,
>endlessly repeated biological state'. Damasio writes, 'I see self and the
>subjectivity it begets as necessary for consciousness in general'. This is
>confirmed by his studies of anasognosiacs, who, uniquely amongst mental
>patients, are unable to reflect upon their illness - indeed, unless told,
>many patients are unaware that there is something wrong at all. No
>anasognosiac is capable of saying 'Something has happened to me' - their
>capacity for self representation has been removed."
>
>The sense of self originates in a biologically generated mental construct,
>doubtless one that is shaped by the boundary of the skin (SOM thinking
>anyone?), and it is also - to my mind - undoubtedly something that is
>shared
>by other animals.
Dan:
I fail to find any argument here with what Mr. Pirsig says in LC.
>
>This Individual can still be perceived as a static pattern of values: a
>unity formed of biological, social and intellectual 'selves', with
>associated excellences at each level - physically healthy, socially
>responsible, someone who displays the unique flourishing of their own
>nature
>in whatever realm is appropriate, of the arts, the sciences, the humanities
>or something different again. There is much here which might satisfy the
>'Ubermensch' of Nietzche - but I haven't got stuck into him yet.
>
>It might seem as if this is the 'pinnacle', but I would say it is not. For
>at each stage of the process of development (and it is a development which
>is reproduced in every individual's own life-story) there is a 'lure' of
>quality, which draws the individual forward. Or as Augustine famously put
>it, 'Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee, O God.'
>
>I see the mystical journey as a growth through these levels; I think, for
>example, that St John of the Cross' descriptions of the 'Dark Night' map
>quite nicely (although NOT exactly) onto this. For the 'Active purification
>of the senses' is the establishment (first) of mastery by the social self
>above the biological self, and then of the Individual self above the social
>self (so the intellect is dominant); the 'Active purification of the
>Spirit'
>is then the dismantling of the Individual self, where the intellect
>realises
>its own redundancy and limited nature (ie that it cannot grasp God; note
>that 'intellect' is here understood in the richer sense). This is the
>'apophatic' moment. If this is completed, then there follows a 'Passive
>night' in which the individual must simply wait for the action of grace on
>the soul, at which point the individual becomes a sharer in the action of
>the Trinity and an agent of God in the world (ie a perfect vehicle for the
>transmission and generation of Quality).
Dan:
This is a theme in Hesse's work.
>
>3.
>My 'campaign' is perhaps misconceived. As you point out (and others have)
>it
>is more important to agree on what the fourth level consists in, than to
>first give it a name. However, I do think it needs renaming - but that
>argument can wait.
>
>Yet I find it interesting that almost nobody has defended the understanding
>of intellect which Pirsig has explicitly committed himself to (ie the
>'narrow' sense). Even David, who I think disagrees with me most violently,
>restricts himself to a criticism of my proposals and not to a defence of
>Pirsig's interpretation. I think the violence of David's reaction arises
>from his misperception of me as a reactionary fundamentalist, but no doubt
>all will become clear in time :-)
>
>And yet Pirsig's understanding is inadequate, in my view, because it is a)
>morally repugnant (what is the worst thing that we can describe about
>9/11?)
>and b) philosophically incoherent (what is the 'choosing unit' or 'machine
>language interface' for the Intellect?). I note with great interest that no
>one has even tried to defend Pirsig on the second element.
Dan:
I thought it best to wait until everyone has a chance to get a print copy of
Lila's Child before entering into any indepth discussions regarding its
content. Being optimistic by nature I assumed the process from manuscript to
galley would be smooth but it's been anything but, so it will be Jan. or
Feb. 2003 before the book is available. I apologise for the delay but it
cannot be helped.
>
>I don't think this invalidates the MoQ as a whole, it just means that we
>need to move on from the presentation of the MoQ outlined in Lila, and
>indeed in Lila's Child. Which, in fact, I think would delight Pirsig more
>than anything else we could possibly do. His 'child' might then start to
>grow up, and walk on its own two feet.
Dan:
Mr. Pirsig has said it and I too get the feeling that people in general
won't appreciate what he's saying in Lila nor will there be a general
appreciation of that work for another 50 or 100 years. If you mean changing
his MOQ to suit our own understanding, I really don't think he'd be all that
delighted.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 15 2002 - 03:03:39 GMT