RE: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 00:46:13 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: RE: MD MOQ human development and the levels"

    Sam, Paul and all MOQERS:

    Chapter 30 of Lila says:
    "Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which is arbitrarily imposed by
    others. It is not any artificial set of conventions which can be amended or
    repealed by legislation. Neither is it internal duty which is arbitrarily
    decided by one's own conscience. Dharma is beyond all questions of what is
    internal and external. Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of rightness
    which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the
    evolving understanding of the universe which life has created."

    Sam said:
    My thesis is that, in response to DQ, the static latch of the autonomous
    individual is constructed by the accumulation of virtues (ie consistent
    preferences). This process is open-ended, and driven by Quality. So when
    Pirsig writes (the quote above) I'm very happy with that.

    dmb says:
    The accumulation of virtues? Hmmm. I don't know about that, but I'm pretty
    sure that Pirsig's assertions about the nature of dharma go way beyond
    anything like the construction of individuals. The very next paragraphs...

    "Within the Hindu tradition DHARMA is relative and dependent on the
    conditions of society. It always has a social implication. It is the bond
    which holds society together. This is fitting to the ancient origins of the
    terms. But within modern Buddhist thought DHARMA becomes the phenomenal
    world - the object of perception, thought or understanding. A chair, for
    example, is not composed of atoms of substance, it is composed of DHARMAS.
    This statement is absolute jabberwocky to a conventional SOM. How can a
    chair be composed of individual little moral orders? But if one applies the
    MOQ and sees that a chair is an inorganic static pattern and sees that all
    static patterns are composed of value and that value is synonymous with
    morality then it all begins to make sense."

    Earlier in the same section, Pirsig says the same thing this way...

    "The physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe.
    RTA is both. This was exactly what the MOQ was claiming. It was not a new
    idea. It was the oldest idea known to man."

    Sam said:
    "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!"

    dmb:
    The Eudaimonic MOQ says yes? Are you suggesting that Pirsig's MOQ doesn't
    also say yes? Its a quote from Lila, no?

    About intellect, Sam said to Paul:
    "... (my dictionary defines it as "the capacity for understanding, thinking
    or reasoning, as distinct from feeling or wishing" It'sthe 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). So I would
    still prefer to use a different description.

    dmb:
    I honestly don't think you'll find any informed persons who think emotion
    plays no cognitive function. This is another area where developmental
    psychology has lots to say. (We can only expect so much from a dictionary.)

    Its interesting to note that emotional trauma in the early stages can
    forever disrupt or impede the higher cognitive functions. Its not a
    developmental stage we can skip or avoid, at least not without paying a big
    price. Feelings, wishes and emotions certainly involve conitive functions,
    and they are an essential part of the overall maturation process. But they
    are of of different sort than intellect.

    I guess it depends on what, exactly, the word "emotion" means to you. But in
    the normal sense of the word, they are something that adults learn to
    control and manage for higher purposes. Not that we can avoid them, we just
    learn how to better deal with them. I'm sure you know that teaching such
    control a huge part of raising children. As a adults we can sort out our
    feelings as a means of self-examination. They stay with us and guide us even
    in our mature lives, but that doesn't mean they're intellectual level
    values. It just means that intellectuals have feelings too.

    Thanks for your time,
    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 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 00:45:49 BST