From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun May 25 2003 - 18:39:21 BST
Hi Paul,
I don't know if the particular/general distinction has been discussed on the list before (I still
consider myself comparatively 'new' - bizarre, I suppose, after 2 years) but it would seem to me to
tie in somewhat with Pirsig's position. That is, he sees the intellect as the 'manipulation of
language derived symbols' - which seems a good way to describe an abstract concept, which is what
you are referring to here. Fair?
My worry is that this then ties into a Platonic perspective, ie quality increases with abstraction,
or, in different terms, you pursue the good/DQ through intellectual ascent. I'm not sympathetic to
that point of view, but I'm happy to hear from people who are.
Cheers
Sam
"Great though books may be, friends though they may be to us, they are no substitute for persons,
they are only means of contact with great persons, with men who had more than their own share of
humanity, men who were persons for the whole world and not for themselves alone." (Thomas Merton)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ
: Hi Wim and Sam
:
: > You argued that:
: > 'The DQ innovation and static latch which enabled
: > the social level to come
: > into being was the development of human language,
: > and human language is par
: > excellence an example of symbol manipulation.'
: > and that therefore the standard account of the MoQ
: > cannot clearly
: > distinguish between the 3rd and the 4th level.
: > IF the 3rd level separates from the 2nd level when
: > human language develops,
: > IF human language is understood as symbolic language
: > and IF manipulation of
: > symbols is characteristic for the 4th level, then
: > the 3rd and 4th levels are
: > not discrete. IF we need 4 levels and IF
: > manipulation of symbols is
: > characteristic for the 4th level, then the 3rd level
: > cannot start with
: > (symbolic) language.
:
:
: With regard to the distinction between the 3rd and 4th
: levels, has the distinction between 'particular' and
: 'universal' or 'general' be explored?
:
: Social patterns of value may be considered
: 'particular' - this place, that river, this horse,
: that light up there - and as such requires no
: 'symbolic' level, it is always related to particular
: experience. Social interaction such as communication
: and limited learning can happen through specifics -
: words for particular experience, copying rituals,
: making copies of artifacts and weapons, learning the
: 'geography' of your environment, even copying cooking
: and hunting techniques.
:
: Intellectual patterns of value are 'universal' or if
: you prefer 'general' - location, rivers, horses, stars
: - and then onto 'abstract' patterns - freedom, justice
: - and things like geometry, astronomy, mathematics and
: philosophy.
:
: What do you think?
:
: cheers
:
: Paul
:
:
:
: __________________________________________________
: It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
: Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm
:
:
: 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
:
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 : Sun May 25 2003 - 19:14:14 BST