From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 01:46:36 BST
Sam:
My problem is in what constitutes the fourth level static patterns which
interact
with DQ to produce the coherent unity. I see them as primarily virtues (in
various fields, including
intellectual) and not as 'ideas'. I agree that eudaimonia as such is not a
static pattern, ie as a
'state' it is not static!
sq: Hi Sam, I don't understand you. You may be right? But the virtue you talk
of, i would simply call high Quality static latching. Now that we have an MoQ
terminology why return to older ones with older baggage?
Of course, what are the intellectual patterns that exist in a relationship
with DQ? That is your concern? Well, has not Paul given you some satisfaction on
this point?
This is a serious matter, because if we do not accept Pirsig's examples there
must be very good reasons to reject them.
There is a difference between 'intellectual patterns' and intellectual
patterns describing other patterns of value. The English soccer team called
'Arsenal' has won many trophy's, but while the team at any one time may only comprise
11 players, it has taken Hundreds of players over many yearly seasons of
competition to win those trophy's. And yet it is still said that 'Arsenal' have won
X-number of trophy's. The pattern, 'Arsenal' is not simply an intellectual
symbol, and it is not simply a group of biological patterns - it is a social
value pattern responding to the Dynamic celebrity status of its immediate
players. The intellectual pattern, 'Arsenal' is static. The intuitive link between
'Arsenal' and a 'four - four - three defence configuration when playing
Manchester City, who cannot deal effectively with that particular strategy up to half
time, when it is known they respond well by adopting counter measures' is
Dynamic.
> Aristotle argues for two states of Eudaimonia. The second state, found in
Ch.
> X of his ethics is fascinating and more Platonic than the first.
We've touched on this before. I'm not an expert on Aristotle, much as I like
his thinking, and
hopefully my thesis can stand separately to whether or not it agrees
completely with Aristotle or not.
sq: I see. This may be the source of some confusion for me, because when you
use the term Eudaimon, i immediately assumed you had Aristotle in mind. Where
did you get the term?
squonk
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 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 01:47:14 BST