From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 16:16:14 BST
Hi Mark,
I'm glad to see you apologize to Sam for your 'mocking behavior' because
it allows me to respond to this post you addressed to me that I would have
otherwise ignored. You and I have agreed many times that beauty
(coherence, unity, harmony, etc.) goes hand in hand with Quality. To see
this mutual understanding undermined by incoherent, deformed and ugly
personal attacks on a fellow poster was upsetting to me because it
poisoned the pursuit of truth and excellence that the exchanges of ideas
on this site aim for. A site devoted to a discussion of Quality ought to
reflect its subject in the manner of the discussion. We can have vigorous
debate without sinking to the level of gratuitous ad hominem remarks.
Platt (previously)
> 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.
Yes, but at the same time, each level is completely dependent upon the
lower level for its health and survival. That's where the 'coherence'
comes in. :-)
> 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.
Since each level depends on those below it for its existence, I would say
that the essence of the fourth level is indeed 1+2+3+4 comprising an
individual.
> 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.
Just to claim someone misunderstands the MOQ (while you do) is not a
convincing argument. Nor is it convincing to say "The MOQ tells us that
autonomous behavior is due to . . ." without showing us where Pirsig says
that or something like that.
> 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.
Again, you've told us what the MOQ says without any references to the
data.
> 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.)
Well, I kinda agree with Aristotle's virtues, or at least the Victorian
values Pirsig mentions including thrift, optimism, hard work, self-
discipline, belief in the future and codes of craftsmanship. I don't think
such virtues are 'old hat' or set the MOQ back in any way.
Mark, may I suggest you reread the part in Lila about the Zuni and the
brujo who, as an sole individual, changed for the the better the social
pattern of the Zuni tribe. And the brujo was no great intellect, for sure.
IMO, only a level could exert that much power and dominance to alter a
lower level pattern. That's another one reason, besides Sam's argument,
why we should change the Intellectual Level to the Individual Level.
Regards,
Platt
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 : Thu Apr 15 2004 - 16:34:01 BST