RE: MD the metaphysics of self-interest

From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 09:30:17 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD the metaphysics of self-interest"

    Hi Platt

    Platt said:
    > Ideally, all the activities you describe (using logic, fitting to
    > empirical data, making economical statements, identifying "elegance")
    are
    > done independently of social level values. A high value at the
    > intellectual level is "objectivity, that is, freedom from society's
    > influence. By contrast, groups, almost by definition, never act
    > independently of others.

    Paul:
    The thing with "independently of social values" as a definition is that
    it would include the inorganic and biological levels as well. It is
    *part of* a definition but not enough. It would be like defining the
    biological level as the level that is independent of inorganic values.
    "Objectivity" comes closer but seems to undermine the effort to move
    away from the idea that knowledge can be objective. In the MOQ,
    "objective" is not used in an epistemic sense.

    The other thing which troubles me is that intellectual patterns, on the
    whole, are not really individual at all - if they were it just wouldn't
    work. If I develop my own unique and individual mathematical notation,
    or decide that today I think it is better to work from a 400 degree
    circle, how much progress would I make? There are Kuhnian paradigm
    shifts from time to time, but if they are to latch they eventually
    become accepted by the wider scientific community and ultimately become
    part of the cultural "common sense."

    Also, intellectual truths and principles are often far from individual -
    intellectual laws are written in the abstract, they generally don't name
    or apply to this person or that person, they are written in general
    terms. As Pirsig says, the intellectual level is "the skilled
    manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular
    experience.." [Pirsig, Letter to Paul T, Sept 2003]

    Paul previously said:
    > > Why would philosophy, mathematics, theology, geometry etc. be
    defined as
    > > "individual patterns" instead of "intellectual patterns"?

    Platt said:
    > Because they were all once created by individuals responding to DQ.
    As
    > Pirsig said, "A tribe can change its values only person by person and
    > someone has to be first." The patterns you cite are also dealt with
    person
    > by person, Pirsig being a fine example in the philosophy category.

    Paul:
    Again, I think this definition is no definition at all. From the
    biological level up, there are things done person by person. In the
    Copleston annotations, Pirsig says this of "an individual":

    "The individual man is primarily a biological organism."

    However, there is something which I think can bring us closer to
    agreement. You talk above of individuals "responding to DQ." This is
    where I would ascribe a notion of *individuality* to. This does not mean
    that Dynamic Quality is *an individual* - what it means is that activity
    that is unique, new, evolutionary, free and not guided by static
    patterns of any kind, is Dynamic Quality. Consider this statement from
    Pirsig, again from the Copleston annotations:

    "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says
    this "autonomous individual" is an illusion."

    Static patterns cannot be autonomous, and an individual is static
    patterns. An individual is the static patterns left in the wake of an
    ongoing process of experience, but individuality may be said to come
    from the cutting edge of the process itself.

    In Lila, Pirsig talks about the immorality of the death penalty:

    "Societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more than sets
    of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves perceive or
    adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that." [Lila
    Ch.13]

    I think a living being is part of the *process* which enables static
    patterns to change - and that is where I think your "individuality"
    lies, not in any one level.

    Cheers

    Paul

    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 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 10:05:43 BST