From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Nov 23 2002 - 05:08:28 GMT
Sam said: .................................... It seems as if you are taking
the social level to mean 'all human elements which are non-intellectual', so
everything that I am describing is _by definition_ at the third level, when
it isn't intellectual.
DMB says:
Yes, OK. All human static values that are NOT intellectual are social. The
vast majority of who and what we are is social. At this point in the
evolution of humanity, social values are the whole cake and intellectual
values are just a thin layer of frosting. Its not a 50/50 thing because the
intellectual level is so new in the world. There are still plenty of people
in the world who haven't grown that far. I think we need to see intellectual
values as a semi-precious commodity. Lots of things are good, but few of
them are true and I think this gets to the essence of the difference. The
intellect doesn't value logic and reason INSTEAD of feeling or emotion, but
will choose to be logical and reasonable over emotion in order to serve the
truth. That's a little too simple, but I think it makes things clear.
Sam said:
I'll repeat the three 'rejections' that I think would 'justify' Pirsig:
1. Pirsig doesn't actually define 'intellectual' in the narrow fashion.
2. The 'eudaimonic' values are social values.
3. The 'eudaimonic' values are illusory.
Although logically I think you're arguing for 2., I don't think you've
actually come out with a positive articulation of the way in which the
'eudaimonic' values that I am arguing for qualify as third level - you've
asserted it frequently, but you haven't argued for it (or if you have, I
missed it).
DMB says:
I guess I'm saying both one and two. I've only a few minutes, so here's a
brief answer. Whether we go with the "manipulation of symbols" definition
provided by Pirsig or the dictionary definition, these are only starting
points. Pirsig says lots about the intellectual level as it is exhibited in
persons, ideals, political conflicts, science, philosophy and lots of other
real life examples. On top of that, the manipulation of symbols isn't as
cold or norrow as it might seem. All assertions and questions in philospophy
can be converted into symbolic logic and then these symbols can be used to
check an arguments rational structure. So in this sense, intellect
transcends and includes languange, which is just one of the really brilliant
and great social level inventions. On the second point, everything you've
said about "eudaimonic" values reminds me of Homer's heros, the Pre-Socratic
sophists, the Victorians and, even though Pirsig does not mention them, the
orginial Stoics. This stuff is good. Its all about how to be good. But its
not about the truth. That's why it is not intellectual.
Sam said:
As I think friendship is one of the highest 'eudaimonic' values (I think
that, to use your language, it includes social values, it builds on social
values AND it has something more), why don't you demonstrate that it is in
fact a third-level value? (That it _doesn't_ have something more?) If you
achieve that, you'll have blown a great big hole in my argument. Sent in the
spirit of friendship!!
DMB says:
It a human value, but is unconcerned with the truth. Its about being good
and having a good life, but does not advance human knowledge or
understanding. (Unless one studies friendship, but that is not the same as
having or being a friend, is it?) But I've already said this kind of thing.
I guess my task will be to think of a new way to make this. Wish me luck.
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 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 05:08:29 GMT