Re: MD The Individual Level

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 12:49:32 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Fw: MD quality religion (Christianity)"

    PART. 1.a

    Hi Sam, Wim, All:

    Although I didn't understand most of the exchange between Sam and Mark, it
    prompted me to take another look at Sam's essay entitled 'The Eudaimonic
    MOQ' in the Forum.

    There I discovered (having forgotten it) Sam's
    recasting of the Intellectual Level based on the distinction between the
    individual and society. He wrote:

    "To my way of thinking, the essence of the fourth level is the existence
    of an autonomous individual: autonomous because the individual is (for the
    first time) capable of establishing their own laws by which to act (auto
    nomos).

    Mark 14-4-04: Hello Platt, Sorry to butt in uninvited, but i think i can
    clear this up for you?
    Sam's view does not coincide with Robert Pirsig's view. And here is why:

    Sam writes, "the essence of the fourth level is the existence of an
    autonomous individual."
    First, let us examine what an individual is in the MoQ.
    An individual Human being is composed of four evolutionary related levels of
    static value:
    1. The Inorganic.
    2. The Organic.
    3. The Social.
    4. The Intellectual.
    The MoQ, as outlined in Lila tells us quite specifically that each new level
    has virtually nothing to do with the lower level. Each new level is a pattern
    of behaviour all of it's own.
    Therefore, the essence of the fourth level is not [1+2+3] = 4th level.
    Again, the essence of the third level is not [1+2] = 3rd level.
    And similarly, the essence of the second level is not [1+?] = 2nd level.

    Sam is telling us that Autonomous individuals behave autonomously. This is
    useless.
    The MoQ tells us that autonomous behaviour is due to intellectual patterns of
    a particular individual challenging the social patterns of the same
    individual. (This will become more clear as we take a better look at Sam's essay
    extracts which you provide for us below.)
    Sam's confusion is due to his fundamental misunderstanding of the MoQ.
    I would go further, and suggest that Sam understands the MoQ, but cannot
    accept it as it leads to blasphemous conclusions, and must therefore be changed,
    hence, the so called, "Eudaimonic MOQ."
    There is no individual level.

    Sam's essay continues:
    Such an individual has freedom of choice and is thereby open to
    dynamic innovation;

    Mark 14-4-04: This is merely saying autonomous individuals behave
    autonomously again. This is useless. However, the MoQ explains, for we understand that
    autonomous behaviour results from Intellectual patterns of value challenging
    social patterns of value.
    The Dynamic innovation indicated above may be attributed to particular
    individuals; it may be appropriate to say that, 'so and so' initiated Dynamic
    behaviour, but this is very sloppy. The Dynamic behaviour is generated by
    Intellectual patterns of value.

    Sam's essay continues, one might say, 'Remorseless in it's inherent ignorance
    of the MoQ':
    such an individual is able to develop that freedom
    through the development and application of the virtues:

    Mark 14-4-04: Apologies Platt. Here, Sam introduces Aristotelian ethics. The
    Virtues are what allow a Man to become Eudaimon. I can only suggest that you
    read the "Nicomachian ethics" (very often just called, 'the ethics') which will
    bore you stupid. But you will like it, because it was the basis for the
    Western conception of what a Good or Wise man should be for two thousand years. The
    British Aristocracy go in for it 100% because Aristotle was writing about
    Aristocrats - the best people in his culture.
    These ideas were heavily adopted by the Church, most noticeably St. Thomas
    Aquinas.
    If 'the ethics' is too heavy for you, i recommend O.J. Urmson's commentary,
    'Aristotle's ethics' which is very good indeed.
    I should add that these ideas, while very influential even today, are a bit ol
    d hat. Sam's heavy use of them is a retrograde step in MoQ terms. (Shakes
    head in abject disbelief.)

    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 - 13:58:51 BST