From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 17:34:55 BST
Hi Sam
If I understand the essay correctly, you feel that it
is the individual’s capacity for judgement through
emotional intelligence, not only the intellect, that
represents the evolutionary advance to a discrete set
of patterns of value.
This sounds very similar to my use of the term
‘dynamic intelligence’. By this term I am trying to
convey something that is not the result of accumulated
intellectual 'knowledge', but is more the art of
perception through the mind. One quality of this
intelligence is an alertness to the process of thought
itself and its tendency to stick to a set of fixed
patterns and categories. I am suggesting that this can
bring about a fresher and more harmonious movement of
the mind (harmonious with the Quality it is responding
to) and more harmonious activity as a result.
Now, I am speculating that this perception is what
responds to Quality as a whole - emotional, aesthetic,
rational, and all other aspects. Depending on context,
it may be relevant to elevate one aspect over the
others, but not habitually or universally. My issue
with metaphysics is the elevation of the rational,
analytical perceptions of Quality to the status they
enjoy now. Maybe it’s down to the ‘success’ of the
application of this aspect to our environment that it
dominates now?
What springs to mind here is Pirsig’s original
classification of romantic and classical quality. This
‘art of perception’ has been fragmented. And the
intellectual level as described by Pirsig seems to
embody the values of the classical mind only -
underlying form, ratio, analysis, order, function. I
think this is where you are coming from?
Now, using Pirsig’s SPOV model, I am writing off
metaphysics as being the product of the intellectual
level dominating other patterns of value by the
reification of the faculty of ‘rational’ perception at
the expense of all other aspects of perception. To me,
eudaimonia comes about through freedom from dominance
by any pattern of value by responding to as much of
the whole (aesthetic-emotional and
rational-functional) as we can through the art of
perception through the mind, or dynamic intelligence.
The paradox for me is that I’ve used a metaphysical
model to articulate an argument to throw out
metaphysics! Babies and bath water springs to mind.
The problem I have is the idea of a non-intellectual
metaphysics, or a metaphysics that is more than
intellectual? But that is what you’re trying to do,
isn’t it?
I think you see something similar to what I have
termed the ‘art of perception through the mind’ as a
better description of the 4th level? In doing this
you’re trying to expand the metaphysics to include
non-intellectual aspects of perception or judgement.
You’ve also strongly identified this faculty with the
emergence of individuals. This approach may have more
cash value than mine! It’s certainly an approach that
interests me.
Thanks
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
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 Apr 22 2003 - 17:37:18 BST