Re: MD The Individual Level

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 12:47:52 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD The Individual Level"

    PART. 2.b

    More Sam:
    In After Virtue,
    Alasdair MacIntyre discusses Homeric virtue (the arete that Pirsig also
    discusses in ZMM) and he argues that "morality and social structure are in
    fact one and the same in heroic society. There is only one set of social
    bonds. Morality as something distinct does not yet exist.

    Mark 14-4-04: A hero, Homeric or otherwise, is a celebrity. The Hero wants to
    be noticed as the individual he is; he is better than everyone else. The
    intellect is not interested in any of that, and is used in so far as it can become
    more of a celebrity.
    Intellectual patterns which abstract morality for intellectual enquiry have
    nothing to do with celebrity status.

    Sam (yawn):
    Evaluative
    questions are questions of social fact. It is for this reason that Homer
    speaks always of knowledge of what to do and how to judge." It is only
    when there is some sense of self as something apart from those social
    roles (eg husband or wife, child or parent, noble or slave) that there is
    the possibility of judgement about what is right - in MoQ terms, that
    openness to DQ depends upon a degree of detachment from the social role.

    Mark 14-4-04: This is simply Intellectual patterns challenging Social
    patterns.

    Sam (making reader stick fork into arm):
    "Just as the cell is the unit at the biological level, and the social
    roles represent the unit at the social level (eg father, husband, son,
    farmer, politician, scientist), the unit of the fourth level is not a
    disembodied rational intellect, but an autonomous - ie socially detached -
    individual.

    Mark 14-4-04: The problem with Sam's account has already been identified.
    Once again for good measure: Intellectual patterns challenge social patterns and
    result in apparent autonomous behaviour. The behaviour is the result of the
    tension between Social and Intellectual patterns.
    Sam announces, "the unit of the fourth level is not a disembodied rational
    intellect."
    Well, no one said it was did they?
    The unit, if one must have one, of the Intellectual level would be a pattern
    of intellectual value. Patterns of intellectual values don't have to be
    rational. Rationality is an orchestration of patterns in coherent unity. The
    orchestration may play a large repertoire of tunes, but variations of rationality are
    the end result of the intellectual corpus.

    Sam continues to compound his initial mistakes:
    And that autonomy is not dependent primarily upon reason, but
    upon emotional maturity.

    Mark 14-4-04: This is where you voiced confusion Platt? And no bleedin'
    wonder mate!
    This is utter garbage in MoQ terms, pure and simple. It may be utter garbage
    full stop? One thing is for certain, this has got sod all to do with the MoQ.
    Now, remember that Sam claims his MoQ variation has made only minor changes
    while retaining all the MoQ building blocks intact? From what has been said
    above we can see this to be total fallacious rubbish.
    Sam began with a misunderstanding, and by the time he begins to build his own
    edifice things go daft almost immediately.

    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 - 13:11:44 BST