Re: MD SOM and the soc/int distinction

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 22:06:17 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD Pirsig the Postmodernist (Systematic about the Sophists(Kingsley))"

    Dear Sam,

    You asked 10 Mar 2003 11:15:06 -0000:
    'Would you be happy with the idea that status and celebrity are the best way
    to determine social values?'

    No, not really. In my dialect of MoQish 'social value' is 'the static value
    of social patterns of value', i.e. their stability and versatility. 'Status'
    and 'celebrity' enter my picture only when I try to explain the stability
    and versatility of social patterns of value: how are these patterns
    maintained (latched) in competition with other social patterns of value and
    under threat of degeneration into biological patterns of value?
    I can't understand 'status' and 'celebrity' as attributes of (social)
    patterns (of value), like 'stability' and 'versatility'. They are values in
    a subject-object context: attributed by subjects to objects, by people to
    other people. The 'fact' that people attribute (different) 'status' and
    'celebrity' to (different) other people (as shown in their behavior towards
    other people) explains why they copy behavior from some other people and not
    from others. If people would copy behavior from whomever they see, stable
    patterns of collective behavior couldn't develop. Any accidental or willful
    deviation from a pattern would be copied just as much as the original, thus
    destroying the pattern.

    You wrote 12 Mar 2003 09:04:34 -0000:
    'I like your definition of the social level very much (unconscious copying
    of behaviour); on the fourth level, I still like my 'eudaimonic' or
    'individualistic' conception.'

    My definition of the way in which intellectual patterns of value are
    maintained (copying of motivations for action) is related to an
    'individualistic' understanding of the fourth level: motives define
    individuals/persons. People participating in the 4th level are characterized
    by the relative consistency of their actions (the behavior they consciously
    'own') and by the relative consistency of their explanations (motivations)
    for these actions.
    I don't call the 4th level 'individual' however, because that would
    strengthen the misunderstanding that the 4th level has no 'social' aspects
    (in the SOMish sense of the word 'social', not referring to the 3th level).
    It has, because motives must be recognized and shared by others to 'work',
    to be experienced as 'valid'.
    Individuals distinguish themselves from each other by a different choice (of
    several items) from the available motivations for action (and thus by
    different patterns of action, if they are consistent). Individuals that
    choose unavailable ways of motivating their actions are insane and destroy
    themselves. They then either 'recreate' a new 'individual' or -if they get
    something out of it- they stay insane for some time.

    You continued 12 March:
    'I doubt it is possible to educate children in "logos" without also
    educating them in a "mythos" - even if the mythos is as impoverished as the
    Modernist drama of salvation by scientific reasoning. We tell our children
    stories; we "show" them stories - and that is the mythos on which their
    subsequent thinking is based, I would say.'

    Would you call 'the Modernist drama of salvation by scientific reasoning' a
    myth?? I thought it was (less tendentiously worded) a high-quality
    intellectual pattern of value...
    In my experience with my children we show them behavior, we make them copy
    behavior, we ask them to motivate their behavior and we teach them how to do
    so by motivating own behavior. They learn to think because at first it is
    not obvious at all to them why some anwers to 'why do you do that?' are
    acceptable to us and others aren't. They have to think to 'get' the pattern
    in the way we motivate our behavior. Telling them stories (or at the age my
    children are now at -9 and 10- making them read stories) broadens their
    experience of behaviors and possible ways of motivating behavior. There is
    no need to choose 'mythical' stories, not even 'mythical' depictions of the
    achievements of science.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 Mar 25 2003 - 22:13:21 GMT