From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 21:28:22 GMT
Mike,
Mike said:
Again, "group mind" was a bit of lazy wording. I'm talking about a
collection of articles of faith, which are passed on from generation to
generation, and which are as much as aspect of reality to the members of the
society as the soil they till or the beasts they hunt. These articles of
faith can be said to be values held BY THE SOCIETY, in that they continue to
be passed on because, and only because, they benefit the society. Feasibly,
a process of natural selection could be involved: those articles of faith
persist if they contribute to the survival of the society. They die out if
the society holding them dies out.
Matt:
This is what seperates you and Platt, who I think are using "group
mind/think/social level" in pretty much the same way, from me and Sam. When
Platt spoke up the other day about how he'd some time ago floated the idea
that we should rename the intellectual level the "individual level," I
hadn't known that, but it made some sense. In a certain sense, your
"autonomy," Platt's "individual," Sam's "eudaimonia," and my "democracy" are
all pointing in the same direction. So we can find common ground there.
For instance, I can point out how I think Platt's emphasis on the aesthetic
in the MoQ is well put. However, for a number of reasons in a number of
different philosophical areas, agreement starts to fall apart soon for Platt
and I.
One of the places we can point to to show where our differences start to
show up is with _why_ we want to rename/direct the fourth level. For Platt
it roughly comes about because he wants a new stick to beat communists with
(though I haven't seen a communist for ages). For Sam and I its because of
Wittgensteinian doubts about the ability to seperate language from
sociability. This eventually leads to radical doubts about an autonomous
faculty called "reason" which is what Platt certainly thinks exists (which
shows up as some sort of foundationalism, like in his quick retort to my
quick interjection in the "Calling all atheists" thread). It would appear
that you feel the same way, that the way you define "autonomy" has something
to do with a faculty called "Reason" that exists independently of the social
level, which leads you to say that "a collection of articles of faith" are
the inhabitants of the social level. The dichotomy between "faith" and
"reason" is one of the things that have to go when you start to have radical
doubts about Cartesianism, and its those radical doubts that make me think
that the theism/atheism contrast, and even the spiritualism/naturalism
contrast, become bad contrasts soon after you start to use them.
However, all that being said, I think what's interesting about your
formulation of the faith/reason contrast is when you say, "The transition to
autonomous 'individual intellect' ... occurs when a particular article of
faith begins to be passed down the generations: that the members of a
society should (and should be free to) think for themselves." This is the
line of reasoning that I think eventually should lead one to _dissolve_ the
contrast between faith and reason. Its also the same line of reasoning as
the "mythos over logos" argument that I suggested should start to give one
doubts about the discrete distinction between the two. Once you suggest
that logos is one more mythos and that reason is one more faith, then I'm
suggesting that you'll soon be starting to look for another way of
describing logos and reason. As soon as you start formulating the nature of
reason as an article of faith, you'll start to have problems like this:
How can "individual intellects" be said to think freely if what enables them
to do so is a dogmatic article of faith? If freedom allows you to swing
free from dogma, how can dogma allow you to swing free from dogma when its
dogma that's allowing you to swing free? How do convince others that you
are free from dogma when they can point to your own admission that you
aren't?
This is sometimes called the "liberal contradiction" and its created by
Enlightenment liberal metaphysicians who try to theorize about politics (Sam
and I had an interesting discussion once because he kept trying to press
that contradiction on me and I kept trying to weasel out of it; I'm not sure
if he still thinks it can be pressed on me, but from my point of view we're
both post-metaphysical enough to avoid any theory traps). My emphasis on
"autonomy" isn't theoretical at all: its a practical thing roughly created
by something like democracy or the creation of privacy.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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 Nov 22 2005 - 02:43:49 GMT