From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 09:39:09 BST
Hi Sam
(my dictionary defines it
> as "the capacity for understanding, thinking or
> reasoning, as distinct from feeling or wishing" It's
> the second half of that definition that I really
> object to, and why I like the neuroscientists like
> Damasio who insist that emotions have a cognitive
> function).
Yes, reasoning, when dialectical, is the use of logic.
But understanding and thinking are not limited to
logic or dialectic at all. Quantum physics has
introduced 'illogical' thinking to resolve paradoxes.
The Wave-particle description breaks the laws of
contradiction (A must be either A or not A) and
identity (A is A) by saying that light is both a
particle and a wave, or in symbolic form - A is both A
and not A.
The problem of definition may be more in the social
level and its evaluation and non-approval of illogical
thinking?
> : The MOQ is an
> : intellectual pattern of value, does that not
> : demonstrate preference, taste and insight?
>
> I would say taste inevitably involves feelings, of a
> more or les refined nature. I would therefore
> deny that taste is intellectual, certainly in sense
> A, and probably not in sense B either.
Taste is a value judgement, do you agree? Every static
pattern is a value judgement, even intellectual
patterns. I think a problem is in the definition of
taste. It really refers to a biological pattern of
value, but has come to mean a general aesthetic
judgement by analogy.
> : At the intellectual level, I think the unique
> : individual called Rembrandt is the collection of
> ideas
> : and intuitions deduced from experience.
>
> Whereas I think there is a stable pattern of values
> which can be accurately the recipient of the
> name 'Rembrandt'. I don't think that stable pattern
> of values is accurately described as a
> 'collection of ideas and intuitions'. Perhaps
> 'consistent pattern of preferences' would come
> closer,
> but I would want to include the other levels
> (represented) in the definition.
I was referring only to the intellectual level as a
collection of ideas and intuitions.
>
> : 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.
>
> Sort of - in the sense that (in the MoQ) NOTHING
> exists outside of experience. Yet it is valid to
> speak of static patterns persisting over time.
> That's what I think the autonomous individual is.
It is definitely valid to speak of static patterns as
that is all there is to talk about. At level 4, the
autonomous individual is defined by ideas and
intuitions, or a repertoire of static responses. That
defines a unique personality, yes. Is that what you
are saying?
> In this example, how do you discriminate Dynamic
> Quality from Quality as such?
Whatever I can put into words, it's not that :-)
> : 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.
>
> That is precisely what I'm arguing for, yes. I don't
> understand the Pirsig reference.
In Lila's Child Note 57, he is talking about primary
concepts such as time and he speculates that 'change'
is the first concept to emerge from undivided
experience. Best you read it, as it's part of a
dialogue.
I find the idea that the first concept to form is of
'self' a little cartesian.
> : I would say there is no self seperate from any
> : construction.
>
> I would say there is when it becomes exposed to the
> fourth level.
Okay
> I'm talking about the static patterns of the fourth
> level!
I think arete is about all levels.
> I just
> don't see why an improved (IMHO) understanding of
> the fourth level
> would inhibit that. Am I missing
> something?
One of us is, or maybe both. Either way, your thoughts
and responses are of high quality and eudaimonia is
clearly a worthy goal. I think eudaimonia fits
comfortably in the MOQ as I find it, that's the
difference.
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 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 09:39:59 BST