Re: MD The Individual Level

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 17:47:16 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD The Individual Level"

    Hi Mark,

    Hoom. Let's stick with this analogy of the symphony orchestra, because I think it's a good one.

    > Mark 17-4-04: Sam, this is based on a fundamental mistake of yours regarding
    > the MoQ. Levels ARE patterns. A level is a static repertoire of patterns of
    > value.

    I don't think levels are patterns; they are abstracted descriptions of common features of patterns.
    Thus the inorganic level is a class of patterns that share the attribute of inorganic. Which I think
    is what you're saying with that last sentence above, although it seems to contradict your assertion
    that 'levels are patterns'. A rock is a pattern of value at the inorganic level. The inorganic
    level - if it is a pattern at all - is an intellectual pattern of value. Isn't that what you're
    saying in your other post?

    > Let us use a simple analogy: The Symphony Orchestra.
    > The Symphony Orchestra has a Woodwind section, a String section, a Percussion
    > section, and a Brass section. Let us assume these sections correspond to the
    > four levels of the MoQ?
    > Any particular instrument must be tuned; it must be in a best tension with
    > itself; it must 'be' well. Just as one instrument may 'be' well does not make it
    > a new instrument does it? No. To be in tune is a good instrument.
    > And so with ensemble paying - Eudaimonia is the Orchestra playing as a whole.
    > Good Ensemble playing is not a new Orchestra, it is an Orchestra playing
    > well.
    > You make a simple mistake, but one which colours your whole description of
    > Eudaimonia.

    Well, that's not how I envisage eudaimonia. I see it as precisely analagous to one section of the
    orchestra, NOT the ensemble playing in harmony. Although, to pursue it further, it may be more like
    a lead violinist or soloist in the middle of a symphony, ie it is that which 'orchestrates' the
    remainder (in the way that the higher levels dominate the lower).

    > Mark 17-4-04: The term Character here is, in the analogy of the Symphony
    > Orchestra, Ensemble playing. It is not the Woodwind, String, Percussion or Brass
    > section.

    No. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that character (ie the eudaimonic pattern of
    value existing in a particular person) is equivalent to a section of the orchestra. Structurally
    eudaimonia is exactly equivalent to Pirsig's intellect, in my conception of the MoQ.

    > You confuse what the Orchestra IS with what the Orchestra is DOING.
    > What the Orchestra is, is four sections; each section has instruments; each
    > instrument is tuned, that is to say, each instrument is at its best.
    > Just as a best tuned instrument is not a 'new' instrument, so a best
    > Orchestra is not a 'New' Orchestra.

    I don't think you've understood my essay. I have wondered why you're disagreeing with me so much,
    given what you say in your Edge of Chaos essay. Your arguing with a fiction of your own creation,
    not with my proposal.

    > Mark 17-4-04: Now that your mistake has been identified and understood, we
    > can see where you have gone astray: What Intellect does may be valued as either
    > better or worse. Better Intellectual activity is not 'New' Intellectual
    > activity, it is Intellectual activity being well, rather as a violin may be tuned
    > poorly or tuned well. And the same may be said for each level in its turn.
    > In the Ensemble playing of the Orchestra, the whole may play poorly or well,
    > and playing well does not constitute a 'new' Orchestra.
    > There is no Eudaimon level in the MoQ - However, there is Coherence in and
    > across patterns of value, and it is the nature of Coherence - ensemble playing -
    > which may be appreciated aesthetically as a life lived well.

    Eudaimonia in my conception is not the equivalent of coherence in yours. I see them harmonising
    quite naturally. I think if you grasped what my essay is about you might agree.

    Sam

    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 : Sat Apr 17 2004 - 18:17:50 BST