From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 12:30:46 BST
Hi Wim,
Part 3
: A CHOOSING UNIT
:
: The crucial problems for you in the standard account of the MoQ lead you to
: develop your Eudaimonic MoQ appear to be
: 1) the 'explanatory gap in the standard account - what is the "choosing
: unit" of the fourth level, the equivalent of the cell or the social unit'
: and
: 2) that the standard account of the MoQ cannot clearly distinguish between
: the 3rd and the 4th level if it defines the 4th level as 'collection and
: manipulation of symbols' and the 3rd level as founded by (symbolic)
: language.
This is fair, but I would add that I think 'eudaimonic' is a more fruitful description of level 4,
ie it's not just that I don't like the standard account - even if these flaws in the standard
account were overcome, I would still prefer a 'eudaimonic' description.
: I have already argued in part 2 of my reply that the MoQ has no need for
: 'choosing units' and a definition of the 3rd level as founded by symbolic
: language doesn't belong in the standard account of the MoQ.
I could be wrong about language belonging as the 'standard' explanation for level 3 (although I
think in fact it IS key to level 3). Again, I would be interested to hear other views on this (or an
expansion of yours).
: We can hardly describe patterns of value at any level without distinguishing
: elements that behave similarly or without distinguishing different moments
: in time in which an identifiable unit behaves similarly. That can be
: described as elements/units 'choosing' to behave in that way because of
: values operating on them (as you do), as elements/units 'participating' in
: the pattern that embodies the values of stability and versatility of that
: pattern and probably in even more ways. We should use the way of describing
: patterns of value that is least
: tainted by the subject-object thinking that the MoQ tries to transcend and
: include. All possible descriptions probably are tainted to some extent by
: SOT, but that doesn't imply that subjects valuing some behavior over other
: behavior are necessarily part of the reality we try to describe. The reality
: we try to describe is our experience and the fact that sometimes we do NOT
: experience subject-object (or even subject-subject) differentiation
: indicates (and -if we rule out delusion- proves) that descriptions requiring
: choosing/acting subjects are false.
OK.
: It is difficult to square your interpretation of the 3rd level with Pirsig's
: interpretation as expressed in 'Lila's Child':
: You wrote:
: 'The social level is the "subjective customs of groups of people". This
: sense of "social" does not apply to anything non-human. The DQ innovation
: and static latch which enabled the social level to come into being was the
: development of language.'
: Pirsig is reported to have written:
: 'A social pattern which would be unaware of the next higher level would be
: found among prehistoric people and the higher primates when they exhibit
: social learning that is not genetically hard-wired but yet is not symbolic.'
: Do you really think that your interpretation belongs in the standard account
: of the MoQ?
Yes. (Subject to resolving the question about language, discussed earlier). What in particular are
you objecting to, the 'non-human' element again?
: You can still argue that 4th level patterns of value (or patterns of ideas
: used by people to motivate their actions) achieve their highest Quality
: (have migrated farthest towards DQ) in the patterns that can be described by
: 'wider eudaimonic rules', rules for full human flourishing. But then we are
: talking about the highest possible static latch of the 4th level and not
: about the lowest one, the one that defines the distinction between 3rd and
: 4th level.
This is interesting. Yes that the full 'eudaimonic' panoply is the highest static latch that we are
familiar with. But I don't see this as defining the distinction. I see the distinction being defined
by the emergence of a static pattern of (level 3) values that is able to dissent from the dominant
patterns which created it, and thereby 'go off on patterns of its own' - I call this the autonomous
individual.
: I just read in a summary of the history of philosophy that Kierkegaard
: distinguished 3 stages in human development: the esthetical, the ethical and
: the religious stage. You can probably tell me more about them and how they
: relate to 'eudaimonia'? I guess that full human flourishing for you would
: imply having reached the religious stage (the highest one according to
: Kierkegaard)? At what MoQ levels do the esthetical and ethical stages belong
: in an Eudaimonic MoQ?
I don't like the Kierkegaardian typology; as much as anything, it all (as ever) hangs on what you
take to be 'religious'. I think a person whose dominant values are social (level 3) is likely to
experience DQ through another person (whose dominant values are level 4 - so they might have a
'halo'). That other person, however, will experience DQ without mediation. (Ooh. Am I arguing for
'unmediated experience' here? Not quite....) In other words, they judge for themselves (the self
being the stable static pattern of level 4 values).
The ethical situation is clearer for me. A level 3 dominated person is ethical in so far as they
follow the rules (formal and informal) laid down by their society. A level 4 dominated person is
shaped and constructed through their virtues (ie disciplined attention to Quality in particular
areas). That's one of the things I most like about the 'eudaimonic' thesis, this clarity with regard
to ethical motivations.
: With friendly greetings,
Reciprocated.
Sam
"A good objection helps one forward, a shallow objection, even if it is valid, is wearisome."
Wittgenstein
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 May 19 2003 - 12:38:43 BST