From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 04:44:43 BST
PART. 3.
Sam:
MacIntyre describes the transition (from human
being as social unit, to human being as individual) as being the change
from the story of the tribe or nation, to being the story of the
individual.
Mark 14-4-04: It will not surprise anyone to know that this bloke,
'MacIntyre' has nothing to do with the MoQ would it? Of course not. We are here to think
about the MoQ not Mr. MacIntyre's SOM influenced enquiry.
If we apply the MoQ TO MacIntyre, as Sam should have done, we see that
MacIntyre can be explained in MoQ terms easily. However, Sam chose to use MacIntyre
to support his own ideas. Useless.
Sam gets crucial:
What is crucially at issue is a transition from being a
vehicle or unit of that social order - and therefore whose decisions are
wholly determined by that order - to being an autonomous unit of decision
making, "For freedom of choice of values would, from the standpoint of a
tradition ultimately rooted in heroic societies, appear more like the
freedom of ghosts - of those whose human substance approached vanishing
point - than that of men".
Mark 14-4-04: What is 'crucial' to explain is the tension between Social
patterns of value and Intellectual patterns of value. Decision making is the
preferencing of patterns of values.
This activity constitutes Human behaviour.
Sam best exemplifies:
Sometime around Homer and Isaiah, but best
exemplified in the culture of fifth century Athens (where Socrates appears
at the tail end), human beings gained the capacity to operate as
individuals, and not as social units.
Mark 14-4-04: That is, Intellectual patterns of value had challenged Social
patterns to the point where humans living in Greek culture began to display
behaviour indicative of their being dominated by intellectual patterns of value.
This behaviour is associated with a pronounced ability to challenge the
authority of the polis.
Sam tries to back up his garbage with irrelevant tosh:
Whenever a human being is in a
decision making situation pre-5th century, then their decisions are geared
around an application of biological and social level elements, eg instinct
(run away from lions and tigers) or (eg)retribution (maintain status of
clan or tribe). For various reasons, largely contact with other
civilisations and greater affluence, human beings in Classical Greece
became able to consider themselves separately from their social role;
moreover, they began to dscriminate and judge between the claims of
alternative societies.
Mark 14-4-04: This has already been explained by the MoQ. (See above.)
Sam whips his key out (Oooo errrrr!):
The key is that whereas before your identity was
exhaustively defined by your social role, and your place in the story of
that society, and your decisions were determined by the values of that
society, now your identity is able to maintain its own narrative
structure, your place is determined by the quality of your own actions,
and your decisions are determined by your own values."
Mark 14-4-04: This is a very simplistic account of the matter. However, it
the 'key' mistake by Sam is his description of Autonomous behaviour. That has
been dealt with above, and it colours everything after it.
Platt:
To me all this makes sense except for a quibble about 'emotional maturity'
which I find more in the realm of pop psychology than good science.
Mark 14-4-04: Are you sure Platt?
Platt:
I agree with Pirsig that emotions are expressions of biological level values
with one exception--the uniquely human response to beauty i.e. DQ.
Mark 14-4-04: It may be better to go into that one separately?
My
other quibble, previously expressed, was with the word 'eudaimonic'
because I instinctively shy away from elitist-sounding balloon words.
Mark 14-4-04: This word means to live a good life, to be one who lives well.
We may discuss what the MoQ may have to say about that? Sam feels in order to
answer that question, we have to adopt his new MoQ. I disagree completely.
Platt:
But that aside, I agree with Sam that the MOQ would be improved if we
changed the term 'Intellectual Level' to a term that more accurately
reflects its difference from the social level. As I wrote to Wim in a post
of 4/4: "I think Pirsig's 'war' between the social and the intellectual
levels is less between conservatives and liberals than between the state
(the collective or group) and the individual."
Mark 14-4-04: I look forward to hearing what your suggestions are Platt?
However, this statement of your rings alarm bells:
"I think Pirsig's 'war' between the social and the intellectual
levels is less between conservatives and liberals than between the state
(the collective or group) and the individual."
Platt:
So my vote for the more accurate term to replace Pirsig's Intellectual
Level is the 'Individual Level.' As Sam suggests, the level arose in
ancient Greece when someone, responding to DQ, arose from the crowd to
proclaim "It is I, not we." At that moment, the world turned.
What do you think?
Platt
Mark 14-4-04: Utter rubbish based on an inability to understand the MoQ
correctly in my view.
The hero celebrity says, "It is I, not we." The thug says, "It is I, not we"
because he wishes to dominate and remove the competition - he IS the
individual.
The intellect says, 'No, Democracy; collective voting will keep the celebrity
individual from dominating.'
All the best, and democratically yours,
Mark
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 Apr 14 2004 - 04:46:34 BST