From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 18:31:04 BST
Split into parts because of the length. This is part one.
: Hi Platt, also Wim, anyone interested in my thesis.
:
: Life is full of surprises; defending Ayn Rand against Platt must surely count as one of the more
: unexpected :o)
:
: I thought that, rather than respond on the specifics of some recent comments from Platt, I would
: simply expand on my 'objection #2'. Given what you said, I don't think you'll agree with it but
: hopefully the presentation will be more lucid than that in the forum essay, and so the choice
: between the 'standard' MoQ and my 'eudaimonic' MoQ will become clearer. (I'll try to keep the
: discussion to objection #2; I'm being voluble enough as it is).
:
: In the essay, I wrote this:
: "Describing the fourth level as 'intellectual' implies that much of specifically human quality is
: classified as social, which is significantly counter-intuitive. This seems either Procrustean or a
: major platypi generator. Those elements of human life which do not fall naturally in the field of
: logic or scientific thinking are deemed to be social level products (that is, putting it
: differently, their quality is primarily assessed in social terms). So: a Shakespeare play has
: primarily social value; such intellectual value as it contains can be abstracted away from the
: dramatic context without diminution of Quality. Similarly, psychotherapy can be exhaustively
: analysed in terms of social value (making well-adjusted citizens) and intellectual value
(fostering
: the ability to carry out logical and scientific reasoning). I think that this is a distortion of
: human Quality, that is, it does not provide a high Quality account of those things which we value.
: (Pirsig makes this point in ZMM; it is one of the discrepancies between ZMM and Lila)."
:
: In sum, there are elements of human life which I see as characteristic of level 4, which,
according
: to the standard account should be classed as level 3 (ie social). Now, this only applies if
: 'intellect' is taken in its commonly accepted meaning, as in standard dictionary definitions, and
as
: in Pirsig's own descriptions. It is 'intellect' as 'logical or scientific reasoning' - which was
: your (Platt) own understanding, as referenced in the essay. As I have repeatedly stated, if
: 'intellect' is defined more broadly then much of this objection falls away, although I would then
: argue that the ascription of 'intellect' as the name of the level is more clumsy than
'eudaimonic',
: even if the latter is still awkward. (And the other objections, especially number 1, remain).
:
: So now for some further explanation. I view the levels of the MoQ as descriptions of what can
: flourish at that level. Rather in the same way that a football match is structured and bounded by
: rules and a field of play, leaving dynamic possibilities for each game, so too I see the static
: levels as descriptions of the 'rules' (or: aggregation of consistent value preference) which
: determine what patterns can static latch at a particular level. So, for example, a rock is a
stable
: pattern of inorganic value, which can be described by the laws of physics. Those laws codify the
: value preferences of the molecules (and sub-atomic units etc) which make up the rock - the
: preference for bonding in one fashion rather than another, which ends up forming this pattern
which
: we perceive and describe as 'a rock'.
:
: With the advent of DNA (or RNA or whichever precursor it actually was) one particular pattern of
: molecular preference opened up a new field of possibilities for static latching. This meant that
the
: laws of physics, which (with the addition of DQ, ie open to novelties) sufficiently described all
: that we could know about rocks etc, were no longer sufficient to describe the patterns of value
that
: could now be 'static latched'. The advent of DNA opened up a new 'playing field', within which new
: possibilities could be explored - and the plethora of biological life could now emerge and evolve.
: These emergent patterns can, in turn, be described by the 'laws' of biology, ie predominantly
those
: associated with the neo-Darwinian synthesis and so forth. Now, when we have patterns such as
plants
: and animals, a full description of these patterns would need to draw on both physics and biology.
: Particular patterns could be described as being 'inorganic' or 'organic' according to which set of
: rules best described the pattern, ie which set of rules was 'dominant', which rule (ie aggregation
: of consistent value preference) best describes the pattern of values that has static latched.
:
: This part of the MoQ, in so far as I properly understand it, I have absolutely no disagreement
: with - I find it a very fruitful way of considering the difference between rocks and plants and so
: on.
:
: When it comes to the third level, the 'rules' which best describe the pattern are those which are
: sociological, those which describe the preferences of groups of human beings. These preferences
can
: also be described as 'laws' - such as the ten commandments etc - but are also customs and rituals
: and so forth. In line with the above descriptions, I would say that the social level, level 3 of
the
: MoQ, describes those preferences which allow societies to flourish (ie which allow societies to
: 'win' the new 'game'). So here there would be those consistent preferences which foster group
: solidarity, group defence, group identity, especially those which defend the group from incursions
: or regressions to the biological level (so prohibitions against adultery etc). So for me,
describing
: something as a 'social pattern of value' (or: a pattern dominated by the social level) is to say
: that it is the rules of the social level which best describe the particular static latch or
pattern
: of value.
:
: In a particular human being this can be conventionally described - and, indeed, the character of
: Rigel in Lila was Pirsig's attempt at just such a description. Rigel voices the values which
: flourish at the social level, and his behaviour and attitudes can be adequately described by
: referring to the preferences of particular groups. Clearly Rigel has elements in his make up which
: stem from a higher level, but his value preferences are dominated by level 3.
:
: At this point, I would like to run through two particular examples, to bring out the difference
: between level 3 and level 4 in particular, but starting with the biological level for added
clarity.
:
: Medicine: at the biological level, an organism can 'self-medicate' (eg a dog eating grass); this
: activity - this expression of value preference - can be fully described through biological
language.
: The organism may be ever so complex, but reference to the laws of physics and the laws of biology
: (genetic inheritance) is sufficient to adequately describe this pattern of values.
: At the social level, a new set of rules apply (a new field of activity is opened up). A given
: society will receive benefit from the ability to heal; therefore that society will consistently
: prefer activities which support healing within that society, and therefore the social role of
: 'healer' will develop. This will be supported by the society in concrete ways: status, resources,
: authority and so on, and the development of the abilities of the healer will continue to proceed
in
: an evolutionary fashion, eg a discovery that one particular herb helps to heal a particular
disease,
: and this knowledge is static latched into the society through oral history or ritual or mythology
: etc.
: At the fourth level, there is an application of intellect to the process. Particular 'folk
remedies'
: can be systematically examined; the effective agents can be isolated (abstracted); the systems
: within the body can be investigated; the panoply of scientific and technological ingenuity can be
: applied and we have 'modern medicine'.
: Now, a particular doctor can be described in just the way that Rigel is described, that is,
whether
: they are dominated by the social level or the higher level. Within the West, the vast majority of
: doctors are fourth level dominant.
:
: I wouldn't expect that description to be particularly controversial.
[continued in part two]
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 : Fri May 30 2003 - 18:45:21 BST