From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 11:30:44 BST
Hi Wim,
> What is a static pattern of value to one cannot be DQ (the value of change
> to the better) to another. The DQ I experience may differ from the DQ you
> experience, i.e. the (for me) new static pattern of value that's left in the
> wake of my DQ experience may be an old static pattern of value for or vice
> versa. Whether a specific static pattern of value that appears in one's
> experience (e.g. democracy) constitutes progress or degeneration compared to
> previous experience, depends on the evolutionary level of this previous
> experience. If this previous experience contains sociocracy, democracy
> constitutes degeneration; if it contains autocracy, democracy constitutes
> progress.
> So yes, DQ is relative to the static patterns of value you participate in.
I don't fully understand your view here; that is, I think your first sentence doesn't agree with the
remainder (which I agree with). Have I missed something?
> You also wrote 23 Apr:
> 'I would say that mythology is level 3 thinking; level 4 thinking operates
> on the basis of the relevant level 3 foundations.'
> in reply to my:
> 'Locating mythological thinking in the 4th level, but evolutionary preceding
> rational thinking, myths for me almost by definition refer to low-quality
> intellectual patterns of value.'
>
> This is not only a matter of different definitions (my definition of the 3rd
> level ruling out 'thinking' at that level). It is also a matter of different
> valuation of mythology.
> We agree that mythological thinking is of lower quality than rational
> thinking, but for you rational thinking needs mythology as its basis. For me
> it doesn't.
> I agree that rational thinking needs presuppositions, but I disagree that
> the relation between 3rd and 4th level is a relationship between
> presuppositions and conclusions. These presuppositions can be taken either
> from pre-rational sources or from post-rational sources, but in any case
> they are just as much part of the 4th level as the rational conclusions
> derived.
Hmm. How about: once a person becomes (fourth level aware) then their level 3 assumptions may become
fourth level patterns of value (in so far as they become self-aware, ie conscious of the patterns
which have formed them)? I think there was an ambiguity in my language which you have discerned here
(thanks) but I think there is some residual disagreement. I do see the fundamental stance of
interpreting the world (ie our world-view, weltanschaaung etc) as non-rational (think of how far it
is conditioned by language, which is social IMHO), and therefore aptly characterised as
'mythological'. I think that is the realm of basic value commitments. So my sense of individual
'eudaimonia' is irretrievably based on the society within which a person is formed. The flourishing
of a Greek will never be the same as the flourishing of a Chinese person, however many parallels
there might be (they are as different as different snowflakes).
I think I would say that the relationship between 3 and 4 is a difference between presuppositions
and conclusions, or at least something like that. I will have to think about that some more...
<to be continued!>
Cheers
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 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 11:48:28 BST