From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Jun 26 2004 - 07:00:54 BST
Dear Mark M.,
You wrote 19 Jun 2004 08:23:48 -0400:
'When you say, [It is not clear to me whether we understand each other's
definitions of
"intellectual patterns" and "social patterns" well enough to make such an
exploration {of the relationship between ideal intellectual postulations and
politics} constructive] who are these "we"...?'
You and me.
You continued:
'Any Intellectual postulation regarding the best state of social patterns
may only ever be approximated. So it seems a good idea to me to examine
those intellectual postulations which harmonise best with social patterns.'
The way I prefer to define 3rd and 4th level patterns of value is as
habitual respectively symbolic patterns, copied behaviour respectively
copied explanations/motivations. (Both includes copying from others and
copying/repeating one's own earlier behaviour/explanations/motivations.)
An inaccurate symbolic representation of a habitual pattern can serve as an
"ideal", a goal that can motivate change in that habitual pattern. It can
reinforce exceptions to that habitual pattern, transforming it a a direction
that makes the "ideal" a somewhat better representation of it. (An
inaccurate symbolic representation can also be used to motivate change away
from it, as when we call something "racism" or "fascism" or ... for others
"socialism" or "communism".)
The value of symbolic representations is partly in correct representation,
as in "explanation". Even then a more correct/complete representation is not
necessarily the best for most purposes, as it would be too detailed to
handle it. Part of the value of "motivating" symbolic representations is
re-inforcing existing habitual patterns or starting new ones. Another part
of the value of both explanations and motivations is that they give
"meaning": the "coherence" of symbols (the experience that they belong
together somehow) is experienced as valuable regardless of how the pattern
relates to habitual patterns (as representation or re-inforcement/change
agent). That's where a symbolic pattern 'goes off on purposes of its own',
in Pirsig's words ("Lila" chapter 12). Such a "purpose of its own" can be
seen as a dim perception of static quality at a higher level. Status (at the
habitual level) is a dim perception of the value of certain behaviours for
keeping a society together (a goal). Truth (at the symbolic level) is a dim
perception of the value of some higher "purpose" than just being able to
grasp and master the (rest of) reality. This higher "purpose" can't be fully
grasped with words, as it refers to a nascent 5th level. It can be
understood to some extent in paradoxes and mataphors (like ascribing
"purpose" to something which isn't a person).
Can you still follow me?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Jun 26 2004 - 08:24:59 BST