From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 14:24:47 GMT
On 11/22/05, mark maxwell <laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Mike (Horse and Mark mentioned in a PS)
>
> 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.
>
> Mark:
> The social level is filled with autonomous individuals
> each fighting for social dominance as autonomous
> individual celebrities. Autonomy is central to being a
> King for example.
> The intellectual level is about intellectual values
> which challenge social authority.
Mike:
Autonomous individuals question received dogmas and are therefore
"capable of establishing their own laws by which to act (auto nomos)",
as Sam puts it in his exposition of the Eudaimonic MOQ. They do not
necessaily put this ability to use in a "fight for social dominance" -
if they do, they are placing level-4 autonomy in the service of their
social-level desires.
Your counterexample of a King is an interesting one. Kings make laws,
true, but these laws are designed to uphold religious dogma or to
maintain the integrity of society (which are the King's _social
functions), or - if he is a tyrant - to advance his own interests.
This isn't what I mean by autonomy... I have to admit it's pretty hard
to explain exactly what I do mean, but it has a lot to do with the
"Witness" as described in today's "Emotions and subjectivity" post.
> Mike:
> S[1] is Cartesian Mind and O[1] is Cartesian Matter.
>
> Mark:
> There is no social level in this description Mike.
> From Anthony McWatt's PhD thesis:
> Descartes' 'I think therefore I am' was a historically
> shattering declaration
> of independence of the intellectual level of evolution
> from the social level of
> evolution, but would he have said it if he had been a
> seventeenth century
> Chinese philosopher? If he had been, would anyone in
> seventeenth century
> China have listened to him and called him a brilliant
> thinker and recorded his
> name in history? If Descartes had said, 'The
> seventeenth century French
> culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am,' he
> would have been correct.
> (Pirsig,1991, p.305)
Mike:
I haven't the faintest clue what you're trying to prove here. I was
merely explaining Scott's labels to Bo. I wasn't arguing that they're
the pillars of reality.
> Skutvik:
> Pirsig's position is that all S/O variants we can
> dream up have their origin in Logos taking leave of
> Mythos.
>
> Mark:
> There is no textual support for Skutvik's statement.
> The habitual liar is off again Mike.
> "The term logos, the root word of "logic," refers to
> the sum total of our rational understanding of the
> world. Mythos is the sum total of the early historic
> and prehistoric myths which preceded the logos. The
> mythos includes not only the Greek myths but the Old
> Testament, the Vedic Hymns and the early legends of
> all cultures which have contributed to our present
> world understanding. The mythos-over-logos argument
> states that our rationality is shaped by these
> legends, that our knowledge today is in relation to
> these legends as a tree is in relation to the little
> shrub it once was. One can gain great insights into
> the complex overall structure of the tree by studying
> the much simpler shape of the shrub. There's no
> difference in kind or even difference in identity,
> only a difference in size. (ZMM)
>
> Mark:
> Mike? See? "There's no difference in kind or even
> difference in identity, only a difference in size
> (between Mythos and Logos)
Mike:
While I agree that mythos shapes logos, I still believe that we can
define the criteria that distinguish logos from mythos. More on this
soon, I hope.
> ZMM cont.
> Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes ancient
> Greece, one invariably finds a strong subject-object
> differentiation because the grammar of the old Greek
> mythos presumed a sharp natural division of subjects
> and predicates.
>
> Mark:
> Mike? See? "...the grammar of the old Greek mythos
> presumed a sharp natural division of subjects and
> predicates."
> How more freaking clear do you want it Mike? The
> Mythos has "sharp natural division of subjects and
> predicates" and this is from ZMM, the same ZMM the
> liar tells us, "Pirsig's position is that all S/O
> variants we can dream up have their origin in Logos
> taking leave of Mythos" He's off his head!
>
> ZMM cont.
> In cultures such as the Chinese, where
> subject-predicate relationships are not rigidly
> defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding absence
> of rigid subject-object philosophy.
Mike:
I must confess a lack of understanding here. How is predication
related to the S/O divide?
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 : Fri Nov 25 2005 - 14:35:51 GMT