From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 01:55:06 GMT
Howdy:
Sam said:
My central claim is that our awareness of the 'truth' is mediated through
our overall judgement, and that judgement is the central eudaimonic value
(ie wisdom, not truth. In Medieval terms, sapientia not scientia). You seem
to argue that we can appreciate 'truth' in an abstract way, ie apart from
our wider human understandings. Is that right?
DMB says:
Apart from our wider understandings? No. No. No. I keep trying to make the
point that your view of the intellect is totally bogus. It is not some kind
of abstract logic devoid of human feeling. Human rights. Democracy. Equality
before the law. The list goes on. The intellect is not removed from humanity
or human feelings in any way. And again, the 4th level includes all the
previous values. In fact, both Pirsig and Wilber have both taken elements of
the perrenial philosophy, which is the finest wisdom of the third level,
and elevated it to the intellectual level. They transcend its mythical
thinking, but do not contradict the essential picture of reality that the
mythical world view expressed. Intellect is an additional layer, not a
replacement. When we compare social level people with intellectual people,
we're talking about a taller guy, not a disembodied head. It conflicts with
the social level only in some cases, usually in cases where hopelessly
stupid moral codes have lost touch with the original social level values.
Pirsig uses the Victorians and today's political and religious reactionaries
as examples of people who insist on defending all kinds of irrational hooey.
(Such as the earth being 6,000 years old, the germans the master race, that
god is a gentleman through and through or that the only good Indian is a
dead Indian.)
Sam said:
Given what you say about friendship, how do you understand this comment from
Pirsig:
"Dusenberry really didn't have any methods. He opposed the static
"objectivity" he saw in other anthropologists because it shut out a deeper
intellectual understanding that came from his friendship with the Indians.
He just wrote and said whatever he liked. I suppose this could be called
"Dynamic intellectualism" though it is better not to invent new terms for
such an ancient trait." (LC note 149)
DMB says:
Seriously? I think this quote is not about friendship. Its just one of the
many, many ways that Pirsig shows us why we ought to reject SOM, the kind of
distant, objective intellect that you too have a problem with. Its about
having first hand personal experience with these people, rather than
treating them as objects to be studied. Its just another clue that Pirsig's
conception of the intellect is that it is NOT cold and removed from human
feeling. This kind of static objectivity does not define Pirsig's
intellectual leve, but is the symptom of the mistaken SOM world view.
Sam says:
To my mind this is one of the places which would justify a claim that Pirsig
doesn't see intellect in the 'narrow' fashion (I just think it's rare and
cuts across other things that he claims). However, his last sentence seems
to imply that this form of understanding is 'dynamic' _precisely because_ he
doesn't think it qualifies as 'normal' or 'static' intellect. Whereas I
would say that this is precisely what the intellect, properly understood,
does: it integrates our emotional insight into an overall understanding
(and, to be specific, that emotional understanding can't be 'cashed out' in
symbolic terms).
DMB says:
Right. Its not so narrow. I can't imagine why you think this is exceptional
or rare. One of the largest theme throughout the book and the point of
constructing the MOQ is to replace "amoral scientific objectivity" with a
much broader conception of the intellect and to show its connection to the
social level. The MOQ replaces the narrow conception you're complaining
about.
Sam said:
So to sum up: on my understanding 'truth' is a subset of the eudaimonic
values, not the absolute determinant of the fourth level.
DMB says:
Absolute determinant? That's a straw man. Nobody said that. To describe the
third level as "the good" and the intellectual level as "the true" is just a
broad orienting generalization. As I already said, its a little too simple,
but is helpful nevertheless.
Thanks,
DMB
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 : Sun Nov 24 2002 - 01:56:09 GMT