From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 23 2005 - 12:04:11 GMT
Hi Matt,
> Mike said:
> Again, "group mind" was a bit of lazy wording. I'm talking about a
> collection of articles of faith, which are passed on from generation to
> generation, and which are as much as aspect of reality to the members of the
> society as the soil they till or the beasts they hunt. These articles of
> faith can be said to be values held BY THE SOCIETY, in that they continue to
> be passed on because, and only because, they benefit the society. Feasibly,
> a process of natural selection could be involved: those articles of faith
> persist if they contribute to the survival of the society. They die out if
> the society holding them dies out.
>
> Matt:
> This is what seperates you and Platt, who I think are using "group
> mind/think/social level" in pretty much the same way, from me and Sam. When
> Platt spoke up the other day about how he'd some time ago floated the idea
> that we should rename the intellectual level the "individual level," I
> hadn't known that, but it made some sense. In a certain sense, your
> "autonomy," Platt's "individual," Sam's "eudaimonia," and my "democracy" are
> all pointing in the same direction. So we can find common ground there.
> For instance, I can point out how I think Platt's emphasis on the aesthetic
> in the MoQ is well put. However, for a number of reasons in a number of
> different philosophical areas, agreement starts to fall apart soon for Platt
> and I.
>
> One of the places we can point to to show where our differences start to
> show up is with _why_ we want to rename/direct the fourth level. For Platt
> it roughly comes about because he wants a new stick to beat communists with
> (though I haven't seen a communist for ages). For Sam and I its because of
> Wittgensteinian doubts about the ability to seperate language from
> sociability. This eventually leads to radical doubts about an autonomous
> faculty called "reason" which is what Platt certainly thinks exists (which
> shows up as some sort of foundationalism, like in his quick retort to my
> quick interjection in the "Calling all atheists" thread). It would appear
> that you feel the same way, that the way you define "autonomy" has something
> to do with a faculty called "Reason" that exists independently of the social
> level, which leads you to say that "a collection of articles of faith" are
> the inhabitants of the social level.
Mike:
I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say that "articles of faith"
are the only inhabitants of the social level, but they're the most
significant to the topic at hand.
For my part, my only purpose in investigating the 4th level is a
clearer understanding of the MOQ. I'm really still throwing mud at the
wall rather than fighting for a particular cause.
Matt continued:
> The dichotomy between "faith" and
> "reason" is one of the things that have to go when you start to have radical
> doubts about Cartesianism, and its those radical doubts that make me think
> that the theism/atheism contrast, and even the spiritualism/naturalism
> contrast, become bad contrasts soon after you start to use them.
Mike:
I don't see "reason" or the 4th level as being opposed to faith. I see
it as a means of assessing and evaluating faiths (specifically, faiths
expressed as spoken or unspoken verbal statements). The dichotomy is
not between faith and reason, but between unquestioned faith (not
subjected to doubt) and justified faith (past the test of doubt).
Matt:
> However, all that being said, I think what's interesting about your
> formulation of the faith/reason contrast is when you say, "The transition to
> autonomous 'individual intellect' ... occurs when a particular article of
> faith begins to be passed down the generations: that the members of a
> society should (and should be free to) think for themselves." This is the
> line of reasoning that I think eventually should lead one to _dissolve_ the
> contrast between faith and reason. Its also the same line of reasoning as
> the "mythos over logos" argument that I suggested should start to give one
> doubts about the discrete distinction between the two. Once you suggest
> that logos is one more mythos and that reason is one more faith, then I'm
> suggesting that you'll soon be starting to look for another way of
> describing logos and reason. As soon as you start formulating the nature of
> reason as an article of faith, you'll start to have problems like this:
>
> How can "individual intellects" be said to think freely if what enables them
> to do so is a dogmatic article of faith? If freedom allows you to swing
> free from dogma, how can dogma allow you to swing free from dogma when its
> dogma that's allowing you to swing free? How do convince others that you
> are free from dogma when they can point to your own admission that you
> aren't?
Mike:
What enables individual intellects to think freely, is education.
Education is necessarily a social process. It is _someone else_
teaching you mathematics, teaching you to read and write, and teaching
you to think critically. The significant feature of these disciplines
is that they cannot be indoctrinated - it's much more a Socratic
Method of "drawing-out" (I was fascinated to learn that,
etymologically speaking, "education" is precisely "drawing out". The
"-duc-" bit isn't "drawing" in the sense of a chalk and blackboard,
but in the sense of drawing the knowledge out of the student.). The
teacher voluntarily _suspends_ the power to indoctrinate you, and
instead encourages and empowers you to think autonomously.
So, the first condition of education (as opposed to indoctrination) is
the teacher's faith that it is better to educate than to indoctrinate.
The second condition is the student's faith that he or she can and
should think for his or her self. And the final condition for a
burgeoning 4th level is the society's faith that its citizens should
be free to think for themselves and to express those thoughts. Again,
it's a _voluntary suspense of power_ - the (rulers of) society
voluntarily suspends the power to control you by coercion.
So, free thinking is made possible by these particular social faiths.
There's definitely a hint of paradox about all this. Take that
sentence: "What enables individual intellects to think freely, is
education." However, it makes sense in the context of the suspension
of power. The 4th level can only be created by a voluntary suspension
of level-3 static value. Better still: the 4th level is created when
level-3 value is put into the service of DQ. This is where the
framework of discrete levels shows its elegance.
Regards,
Mike
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 Nov 23 2005 - 13:11:14 GMT