From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 11:02:39 GMT
Greetings Bo,
> > Mike:
> > Shockingly, I hadn't bothered to read Sam's essay on the "eudaimonic
> > MOQ" until you sent this. Reading it was another thing that had me
> > shut up for the last couple of weeks. I'm now fairly convinced that
> > autonomy is more fundamental to the 4th level than "intellect" per se,
> > but I also think that autonomy is more fundamental to the 4th level
> > than eudaimonia, as well, although perhaps this is what you mean by
> > "emphasizing the shift"?
> Bo:
> I haven't bothered with Sam's eudaemonia idea either because it
> looks superfluous to me. After all Pirsig gives a splendid and
> convincing description of how the S/O split (the 4th level IMO)
> emerged, developed and "came of age" in ZMM. What Sam
> adds to this I never understood. But I'm willing to listen, please
> give me its gist Mike.
Mike:
As I see it, the core argument is that the 4th level, as that which
opposes the social level, must consist of individuals who are not
completely bound by the dictates of society, i.e. autonomous
individuals. This isn't rocket science, but simply by emphasising
"autonomy" instead of "intellect" (whatever that word means), we can
bring a whole host of high-quality creative activities, aspects of
human flourishing, into the 4th level, where previously they might
have been banished to the social level.
> > Matt:
> > > Our suggestions have a lot
> > > to do with autonomy, but we're screwing with the framework more to
> > > emphasize the shift (well, that and we don't think you _can_ make a
> > > discrete distinction between what Pirsig calls the social and
> > > intellectual level).
>
> > Mike:
> > So you don't think we can have a discrete distinction between mythos
> > and logos? For the moment, I still have high hopes that such a
> > distinction can be linked to autonomy, or S/O[2].
> Bo:
> And if you in addition would explain the different S/O layers of
> Scott I'll be even more grateful.
Mike:
Scott's explained it enough times that even I think I understand it,
but okay. S[1] is Cartesian Mind and O[1] is Cartesian Matter. Perhaps
a more descriptive label would be S/O[Descartes] or S/O[D] for short
(no sniggering at the back of the class!)
Well, okay, snigger away. I did.
I understand S[2] to refer to the autonomous intellect. It differs
from Cartesian Mind, because the O[2] can either be from the realm of
O[1], i.e. Matter, such as a rock, or it can be from the realm of
S[1], such as a thought or an emotion. I believe that Socrates was
suggesting that people should make use of their S[2] when he said that
"the unexamined life is not worth living". This suggests that S/O[2]
pre-dates S/O[D], indeed, it must have been Rene's S[2] that applied
the method of doubt, which led him to S/O[D]. S[2] is the thing that
does philosophy.
Regards,
Mike
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 : Mon Nov 21 2005 - 11:36:17 GMT