From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 09 2005 - 03:08:52 BST
Hi Wim,
I suspect my remarks need further work. But as conversation with you is
always a stimulus to that, I'm going in the right direction. :o)
> You wrote 7 Aug 15:28 +0100:
> "I see 'symbol' as a social level phenomenon. There is no such thing as a
> private language. So I agree with what you say about symbols, I just think
> it refers to the social level, not the fourth level."
>
> So according to you a pattern of value should be private to belong to the
> 4th level? And you reject Pirsig's definition of the 4th level in 'Lila's
> child'?
On the latter, yes, undoubtedly. I think it flies as effectively as the
proverbial lead balloon. Which I've discussed before (with Paul if memory
serves). In brief I object to the language of 'symbol' - because I think
it's a social phenomenon - and also the notion of 'manipulation' because,
put simply, it seems that the response to DQ, ie what is _doing_ the
manipulation, is what characterises the fourth level.
But first a clarification. The point about private language was a reference
to Wittgenstein's argument. I don't want to get snagged on 'private' being
one of the hinge terms in explaining the MoQ, because I'm not sure it adds
anything. But let's see.
> That suggests to me that you define the levels as follows:
> 1st level: patterns of value that are shared by all what exists
OK
> 2nd level: patterns of value that are shared by a whole species (or
> category
> of species)
Patterns shared by all life? eg DNA, possibly RNA. I think there are then
possibilities of further refinements, eg talking about members of a species
having certain patterns in common.
> 3rd level: patterns of value that are shared by a group
OK.
> 4th level: patterns of value that are private and characterize an
> individual
> or rather its personality
Drop the 'private', otherwise OK.
> Do you agree?
> Doesn't seem the most useful way of defining the levels to me, but (apart
> from contradicting Pirsig) not invalid as MoQ either.
I don't think either of us are too worried about contradicting RMP :o)
I would also say that there is more that can be said to define the levels,
the most important bits I went through in my eudaimonic paper, especially
the 'presiding values'. You've taken one remark and built the whole
metaphysics from it. And I want to say - agreeing with you - that there is a
lot more going on.
>
> If that really is how you define the 4th level, then 'natural selection'
> at
> that level might be seen as a matter of 'natural selection' of
> 'personalities' or 'personality traits'. The strongest personality or
> personality trait survives and ... is copied by others.
I think that's a non sequitur. Once the fourth level has got started then
the individual pattern will aggregate further patterns (general
propositional truths - GPTs - and also, I would say, the various virtues) in
accordance with the light that guides them to DQ. I would have thought that
fitted right in to a Quaker understanding?
> But isn't that a
> social mechanism again?
No, don't see why.
> Or alternatively as a matter of 'natural selection'
> of ideas or memes.
That's more like it.
> But again survival requires copying to (convincing of)
> others and a social mechanism.
Not sure that's true. Some things can't be taught, they have to be
discovered for oneself. That is what I am talking about. The patterns which
are copied are the fingers pointing to the moon. Once you have 'grasped the
moon' you're off on a unique journey that can't be reproduced (or even
spoken about, by and large - language is the social pattern).
> In short, I'm running into problems with your statement that a 'symbol'
> can't be the smallest unit of 'patternedness' at the 4th level because it
> can't be private. Personality traits or ideas/memes are not private either
> once they survive the individual (or the group...) where they originated.
> When you are just referring to certain ways of behaving becoming 'latched'
> in an individual, becoming part of its character or personality, I fail to
> see much relevance of such a 4th level for the type of (political)
> discussion in which it is applied on this list and in 'Lila'.
Hopefully dropping the 'private' emphasis will make things clearer. In other
words, I think the fourth level is 'private' - but not everything private is
fourth level.
> Truth (or truthfulness?) being latched as a valuable idea (respectively a
> va
> luable personality trait?) "because it satisfies the individual's spectrum
> of values" (your 26 July quote from Platt which you judged "pretty much
> spot
> on") doesn't satisfy me. Isn't 'truth' (respectively 'truthful') simply
> one
> of those values in that individual's spectrum of values? Truth being
> latched
> because it satisfies 'truth', doesn't explain much, does it? And -again-
> isn't this way of talking about 'values' referring only to SOMical values,
> the type that is attributed to an object by a subject?
It's the link between truth and honesty (or lack of self-deception). Only
the holy can see truly. Or; one must cleanse the doors of perception.
> Aren't the 'patterns of value' that constitute reality according to a MoQ
> quite different from the 'value' we attribute to ideas, personality traits
> or whatever?
According to the MoQ, everything is a pattern of value. They are different
in four ways.... I just have a different understanding of the fourth way.
Thanks for your remarks
Sam
Those who were thrown to the lions were not reading "Thomas" or Q or the
"Gospel of Mary." They were reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the
rest...
(Tom Wright)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Aug 09 2005 - 03:48:05 BST