From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 14:04:26 BST
Hi Sam,
> I think that my 'scatter-shot' technique, in listing all those examples,
> didn't make my central point clearer - and certainly some of them are much
> more debatable than others. As it is emotional maturity which (as you
> correctly point out) is the 'hinge' of level 4 for me, it would probably be
> better to have concentrated on that. Anyhow - let's look at a specific
> example, which, as I mentioned to Wim, is for me a pretty good one. A
> Rembrandt portrait - how is that resolvable into biological and social
> satisfactions? (I'm assuming you're still happy with 'intellect' meaning
> logical and/or scientific?) I think there is a remainder once you 'remove'
> the patterns that are biologically or socially derived, ie the physical
> stuff the portrait is made of, and the social motivations (pay?) that bring
> it into being. (Shakespeare could be an alternative example). I think that
> the quality of the painting cannot be separated from the emotional insight
> and maturity that governed the 'sight' that Rembrandt brought to bear, and
> I don't think that emotional Quality is resolvable to level 2 and level 3
> patterns.
I once saw one of Rembrandt's portraits in the original (other than
reproductions in books and magazines) at the National Gallery in
Washington, D.C. My reaction was anything but "intellectual." Rather, it
was transcendent, meaning my separate self sense was, for a moment,
obliterated. That this phenomenon is biologically based is fairly well
established by the ability of LSD and other drugs to create a similar "out
of body" experience. Rembrandt's motives for painting his portraits will
be forever hidden, but I suspect he derived visceral rather than
intellectual pleasure from his work. As for Shakespeare, as for all plays,
movies, etc., the purpose and the experience are primarily social rather
than emotional or intellectual (although the latter levels are often well
represented). As Pirsig points out:
"Those movies were rituals, almost religious rituals, for transmitting the
cultural values of America to the young and reconfirming them in the old.
It wasn't a deliberate, conscious process; people were just doing what
they liked." (3)
> : To back up my case, I give you Pirsig's testimony::
> :
> : "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality and not the :
> same thing as quality." (Lila's Child)
>
> I don't think Pirsig has a good handle on emotions, and this is possibly
> the major part of my disagreement with him (that's why it's my #1
> objection). I agree that emotions begin as a biological response to
> quality, but I think they 'scale up' with each level, ie shame is a
> socially constructed emotion.
I'd guess that shame has its origins in the arena of sex (biological), but
since I'm no psychologist, it's just a guess. Fear of public speaking
might be a another example of a socially constructed emotion, although
animals of all sorts display biologically-based submissiveness. (If you're
a died in the wool evolutionist like Dawkins, you can trace everything
back to biology.)
> In the same way, I think the ability to think
> for oneself (a key part of level 4, I think we agree) (and as opposed to
> simply thinking, which I think happens in level 3) is dependent upon
> emotional maturity, ie the development of the virtues, which are focussed
> on the individual not the society within which that individual is born.
> Those virtues I think are emotional constructions, not intellectual
> constructions.
What might those "virtues" be that are self-centered? (Please understand
that I agree with you that self-actualization is more moral than
conformity to a group because a postconventional stance requires broader
awareness.)
> OK - a specific question for you, given what I remember about your
> preferences <grin>. When Dagny Taggart chooses to have sex with Hank
> Rearden, was this an expression of level 2 values? Or (the mind boggles)
> level 3 values? I don't believe it was, you see, and I think that is the
> point of the book. "We are those who do not disconnect the values of their
> minds from the action of their bodies... You knew that the physical desire
> I was damning as our mutual shame, is neither physical nor an expression of
> one's body, but the expression of one's mind's deepest values, whether one
> has the courage to know it or not."
Rand had a lot of good ideas but this was not one of them. (Nor were her
views of art enlightening.) Attraction to the opposite sex is pure
biology. Reasons for attraction to a particular individual of the
opposite sex is so complex as to be beyond explanation, but if you're a
man, it helps to be rich, as Hank Reardon was. :-)
Platt
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 26 2003 - 14:06:21 BST