Re: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ

From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 16:23:39 BST

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ"

    Hi Davor,

    I thought your comments belonged in this thread.

    Firstly, as I said to Squonk, I wouldn't want to identify my thesis with Aristoteleanism, although
    there are obvious linkages. I'd like it to stand on its own, if possible. Secondly, I know very
    little about Hinduism, and the point of my postscript is to pick up Pirsig's description of Dharma,
    rather than the whole of Hindu philosophy.

    You said:
    I think
    there is consensus about virtue being part of the so called vita
    contemplativa(in Greek bios theoretikos), not? If so it cannot be identical
    with dharma, while dharma(righteousness) is more associated with the vita
    activa(in Greek bios praktikos). In Indian terms pravritti.
    It seems that both dharma and artha, do not have the importance that both
    you ans RMP subscribe to these concepts. They belong in the lower echelons
    of the human life. Hmmm, I feel like I am telling Tiger Woods how to play
    golf(....well after that first round he probably can use some advice).

    You may well be right about that, you clearly know much more than I do about Hinduism. What I
    understand Pirsig to be doing is to use the traditional language to describe the static latches at
    each level as 'dharmas', in order to reflect the originating source (rather like 'natural law' I
    suppose). Are you saying that dharma CANNOT be level 4?

    You said:
    The root of my or your misunderstanding is in your eudaimonic MOQ. I have
    not had time for reading much posts lately so I completely missed out on the
    discussion about it, so pardon me if I repeat what already has been
    discussed.

    Have a look at the essay itself; most of the discussion presupposes that (on the moq.org website)

    You said:
    I did not discover a systematic approach to the virtues in the
    work of Aristotle, though as said my knowlege is limited, and if you can
    proof me wrong please do so. Whether Aristotle did or did not systematize
    the virtues is of great importance I think. Phronesis an important virtue,
    is not the key virtue!!!! It is the third virtue and not the fourth, I
    assume you have based your Eudaimonic level on the virtue of phronesis did
    you not?( your words; 'It is this ability to discriminate as an individual,
    and not just as a social unit, which I see as the essence of the fourth
    level")

    See his 'Nicomachean Ethics' for a discussion of the virtues.

    But there is a special virtue not belonging in the hierarchy but
    being detached from it, something else from the three, the justice from the
    republic as a result from the virtues. This is not an Aristotelian but a
    Platonic idea. Now there is the key of the flaw of your eudaimonic MOQ(with
    respect). I would choose the Platonic version where the harmony of of the
    virtues results in a righteous state, which may sound weird but important is
    that it is not an individualised conception of the highest virtue. The
    intellectual level or the eudaimonic does include the individualising of the
    virtue while (Dynamic)Quality or the intellectual level should not be
    considered as an attribute or accomplishment of individual subject but as a
    product of an harmonized equillibrum of static and dynamic forces
    established by the opennes of a culture as a whole. The fact that you give
    rise to the importance of phronesis that allows an individual to judge
    objectively to the extent that it is possibly is a heritage of Aristotelian,
    Hellenistic and theological distortion of Platonic systematized virtues.

    It would be fair to say I'm more Aristotelean than Platonic.... But I agree that "the harmony of of
    the virtues results in a righteous state" - that's what I think the operation of DQ on the
    autonomous self achieves (it's what the Christian tradition calls 'theopoesis').

    Thanks for your comments; they were intriguing even where I haven't replied to them specifically.

    Sam

    "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!"

    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 15 2003 - 16:50:43 BST