From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 18:17:05 GMT
Matt
The whole idea of levels is a tricky one.
But does not a non-reductive physicalism
imply some form of levels as discrete from
each other in some way?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: MD Fifth Level?
> Steve,
>
> Steve said:
> You say that you would rather think of the levels as stages of development
in history rather than as ontological types (I'm not sure I understand that
term either) which may mean we aren't even talking about the same thing when
we talk about the levels. I thought you were willing to play metaphysics
for a while?
>
> Matt:
> Well, you did ask about my own conception of the levels. You could still
call what I wrote "metaphysics" in the Platonic sense. Just add a "this is
what's _really_ real" addendum to every statement and you have a Hegelian
metaphysics. Or you can use "metaphysics" the way Wim uses it and say that
what I wrote is just one way of describing experience, one way of seeing how
things hang together, the merits of which are based on how useful you find
it.
>
> Steve said:
> I guess semiotic is my new word for the day. My dictionary says it means
symbol-based communication. You emphasized that the differences between
levels must be substantial to satisfy Pirsig's requirement that they are
discrete. I don't think linguistic/non-linguistic is substantial enough to
merit separate levels (and probably not even as discrete as it sounds).
>
> Matt:
> I think you are absolutely right, but then I've never had much use for
discreteness when I do philosophy (which is what you asked for when we
shifted from explication of Pirsig to explication of me). Discreteness is
something I think you have to deal with if you want to remain a Pirsigian
metaphysician, faithful to his ontological scheme. Discreteness is a
problem I dissolve into a distinction between past and future.
>
> Steve said:
> I don't see why it is important that linguistic and non-linguistic
patterns each have their own levels.
>
> Matt:
> Because I see language as an important and noteworthy evolutionary tool,
but I still see a difference between cells and tigers.
>
> Steve said:
> I don't understand how a eudaimonic pattern of experience compares to an
intellectual one in this formulation.
>
> Matt:
> In my forumulation of the two? Well, I haven't glossed it all out yet,
but I think you can think of the break between the intellectual level and
the eudaimonic level as the split between public and private spheres.
Before the idea of privacy, everyone was susceptible to control by the
public sphere. This goes along with language being at first a social thing.
You talked to other people, you agree on the meanings of words, etc. With
the creation of privacy, you start to talk to yourself.
>
> I think I see the split like this:
>
> intellectual v. eudaimonic
> public v. private
> language-as-convergence v. language-as-divergence
>
> So, in a sense, I think you could make this split:
>
> politics, science v. art, religion
>
> Politics aims at consensus because politics is all about getting people to
agree on policy to get stuff done. Science definitely aims at consensus.
However, art and literature, it seems like the more different you are, the
more idiosyncratic, the more appreciated you are. We don't like movies that
fit a forumula, we like groudbreaking stuff.
>
> With religion, I'm thinking of Whitehead's definition: religion is what
we do with our aloneness.
>
> So, what is a eudaimonic pattern of experience? Its what you experience
when you are alone. It is intensely private. It is essentially mystical.
>
> Hmm, stuff for me to think about. I like how things are shaping up.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Dec 09 2003 - 18:19:28 GMT