From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 13:15:44 BST
Hi Sam
> And I say, the issue is what is to count as
> 'intellectual' - I think there are static elements
> involved in the production of a Rembrandt painting
> which are neither social, nor logical, nor
> scientific, but can be characterised by reference to
> the preferences, tastes and insights of the
> unique individual called Rembrandt
Logic is an intellectual pattern of value, but logic
and intellectual are not synonymous. The MOQ is an
intellectual pattern of value, does that not
demonstrate preference, taste and insight?
Your preference for the term 'eudaimonia' over
'intellectual' is an intellectual preference.
(that unique
> individual being a stable pattern of values
> describable by reference to the fourth level).
At the intellectual level, I think the unique
individual called Rembrandt is the collection of ideas
and intuitions deduced from experience. The unique
individual doesn't exist prior to or outside of
experience. But the idea of a unique individual is
often a central concept in an intellectual explanation
of experience.
>
> : > 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 would say that emotion is biological response
> plus
> : social meaning.
>
> I think that's part of the answer, but I agree with
> Damasio - 'It does not seem sensible to leave
> emotions and feelings out of any overall concept of
> mind' - in other words, emotions (in a
> particular form) are essentially involved in our
> intellectual processes. Therefore, any account of
> level 4 which does not take them into account (ie
> 'manipulation of symbols' is at best incomplete,
> at worst deeply misleading). I try to incorporate
> emotions into level 4 through my discussion of
> virtues and wisdom, ie "emotional intelligence".
Emotions 'exist' at the 4th level but as symbols of
experience at a different level, namely biological and
social. The MOQ says that intellectual patterns of
value are generally opposed to biological and social
patterns of value, which would include emotions.
>
> : 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.
> :
> : The 'blushing' or similar response is biological,
> the
> : context and meaning is social. The concept of
> 'shame'
> : is intellectual. The idea that 'shame is a social
> : construct' is also intellectual.
>
> How would you classify 'self-control'?
An intellectual pattern of value describing the moral
right of a social pattern of value to over-rule a
biological pattern of value.
>
> : Having publicly struggled with the MOQ definition
> of a
> : human being, I concluded the following:
> :
> : The 'individual' is an inorganic field of stable
> : quantum probabilities, organised by DNA into a
> : coherent biological body, many social people, a
> : collection of concepts and ideas and with a
> Dynamic
> : awareness.
>
> So you agree with Pirsig that, under analysis, the
> notion of a 'self' vanishes into all the things
> which compose it, ie it can be 'reduced' without
> remainder?
No, I think that the remainder is Dynamic Quality.
I think that the primary static latch of
> the fourth level can be described as a 'self' of a
> particular sort.
The self may often be a central idea deduced from
experience (particularly in the west) but I think the
MOQ would say that a symbol standing for a pattern of
value (inorganic, biological, social or Dynamic) being
created in the brain was the first static latch of the
4th level. If that symbol was of an abiding self, then
maybe you're right? 'Change' seems to be Pirsig's
suggestion.
(Whether there is also a self
> which functions at the third level, ie which has no
> independent faculty for responding to quality
> separate from its social construction,
I would say there is no self seperate from any
construction.
> : Perhaps it is Dynamic awareness that you refer to
> when
> : you talk of emotional maturity and individual
> : autonomy?
>
> I think they are linked, but conceptually separable.
> Primarily because of the possibility of static
> latching - there are patterns (eg of consistent
> preferences over time, ie virtues etc) which reveal
> the constitution and identity of the autonomous
> individual.
I would argue that the patterns don't 'reveal' a
pre-existing identity, an identity is derived from the
patterns of experience. In the west, an identity is a
good and supported derivation!
Consequently, although the original
> establishment of a virtue may be a response to DQ,
> its ongoing operation is an example of SQ. As
> such, I would say that emotional maturity is
> primarily a large reservoir of accumulated static
> patterns (of virtue).
Virtue - in the 'arete' sense? Ah, I think I see where
you're coming from. As I understand it, Pirsig thought
arete was synonymous with dharma and Quality in ZMM.
But in Lila, after the static-Dynamic division is
made, arete is the recognition of static quality. This
he sees as the result of the Greeks not resolving the
SQ-DQ relationship, unlike the Hindus.
Dharma is the complementary relationship between SQ
and DQ, not one or the other. On this topic, Squonk
and I were discussing a simultaneous coalescence and
differentiation, Eugen Herrigel talks of a
'purposeless tension'.
'Phaedrus thought it was because dharma includes both
static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction.'
Lila Ch 30
> "Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of
> the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
> almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word
> 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
> Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the
> 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
> Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
The self referred to by dharma is 'big self' or
'universal mind', you're right, 'big self' cannot be
contained in symbols, but neither can any individual,
society, religion, perception, emotion or static
pattern of any kind.
You can redefine the intellectual level but that you
define it necessarily leaves out the undefined Quality
that to me brings about eudaimonia - I would say
dharma resolves this, not a static level of any
definition.
But don't let me stop you :-)
cheers
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.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 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 13:17:20 BST