RE: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 00:16:47 BST

  • Next message: August West: "Re: MD quality-man made or natural?"

    Steve, Sam and all MOQers:

    Steve said to Sam:
    I assume you brought Spock into this because you think that (a) Spock is the
    epitome of an intellectually dominated person and (b) the MOQ says that it
    is best to be intellectually dominated, which would suggest a problem with
    the description of the intellectual level because none of us think that
    Spock is the ideal person.

    dmb says:
    There's nobody like Spock, and I mean that quite literally. There's no such
    thing as a purely rational creature. We all know this from everyday
    experience of the world and from being in our own skins. In the original
    Star Trek, as in Plato's REPUBLIC, a single human psyche is divided into
    three distinct aspects. Spock is a fiction that represents one third of a
    mind. Naturally, this is not our idea of a well rounded or ideal person.

    Steve continued:
    DMB seems to disagree with(a) and agree with(b). I agree with(a) but not(b).
    I don't think that what is best is to be dominated by intellect. Pirsig
    says what is best is to be free of all static patterns which is often
    interpreted to mean some sort of enlightenment. I think it may also be read
    to mean having everything in balance.

    dmb says:
    Maybe you'd agree that AS FAR AS STATIC QUALITY GOES, its is best to be
    "dominated" by 4th level values, but only "dominated" in the sense of the
    moral codes. I mean, we're talking about making the most moral choice here,
    not some crushing tyranny. We're talking about a hierarchy of VALUES. I
    agree with your objections. Freedom FROM all static patterns certainly is
    best, but that's part of the same moral code. And I largely agree with the
    call for balance. That's what both Plato and Rodenberry sought to
    demonstrate by representing the human soul in fragments. We'll get to watch
    Kirk weigh Spock's cold reason against McCoy's passionate emotionalism and
    find a balance on cable for the rest of our lives.

    Steve said:
    In Lila, Phaedrus represents intellectual quality (Rigel represents social
    quality, Lila represents biological quality, the boat represents inorganic
    quality). Most of us probably identified most with Phaedrus and assumed
    that what is best is to be like him. None of us wanted to be like Lila or
    Rigel (or the boat). But Phaedrus himself is a bit of a Spock, isn't he?

    dmb says:
    I think Pirsig's encounter with insanity and his advocacy of mysticism set
    him quite apart from the typical intellectual, but I know what you mean.
    He's a dork and nerd, just as much as those who have recently confessed to
    being the same. I agree with how you rank the characters into levels. But I
    still think you're misreading his apparent lack of social skills a bit. For
    example,...

    Steve said:
    He is intellectually dominated to the point that he can't really have a
    conversation with someone because his mind starts drifting away. Look at
    how the Narrator in ZAMM deals with his troubled son as well.

    dmb says:
    Leaving ZMM aside for the moment...
    Pirsig's depiction of the intellectual's inability to communicate has a
    purpose in the book. He's trying to show that it is nearly impossible for
    the intellect to deal directly with biology. They need that 3rd level as a
    middle term. Notice that he doesn't have nearly as much trouble talking to
    Rigel and, after the initial celebrity induced "goon out", he and Redford
    had a very nice conversation. They even connected, in a way. An intelligent
    artist like Redford doesn't take him for a "sad sack" at all. That's just
    how Lila sees him. To complicate matters, in his actual life, and in the
    book, the man is NOT pretty. He spends some time talking about how he'd
    never had much to desire physically and all the girls let him know it with
    their giggles and such. My point is only that intellectuals are NOT socially
    inept so much as they have trouble socializing with the inept. I've limited
    anecdotal evidence and we're really just talking about personality types, I
    guess, but lots of the people I hang out with could rightly be called
    intellectuals. Some of them dress like nerds, but everyone of them could
    entertain me until dawn with nothing more than words. I'm sure of that. The
    smartest people I know are also the funniest and most charming people I
    know. I think this is not a co-incidence.

    Thanks.
    DMB

    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 Jun 02 2003 - 00:16:15 BST