From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 21:33:54 BST
Dear Sam,
I find it easier for reference purposes to have your essay
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/Eudaimonic-moq.htm available on-list, so I copy
it in 3 parts. It may also attract more readers that way and I think it is
worth their while.
I will reply to it in due course.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
THE EUDAIMONIC MoQ:
A proposal for reconceiving the fourth level
INTRODUCTION
This paper is an extension and summary of the proposal initially put forward
in the 'MD Sophocles not Socrates' thread in the MD Discussion forum,
beginning in October 2002. My central thesis is that the fourth level of the
Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) is best described as a 'eudaimonic' level and
not an 'intellectual' level. This thesis does not take issue with the
overall framework of the MoQ, that is, an understanding of reality as
founded on Quality (value) which can be understood as separated into four
static levels and one dynamic force driving evolutionary development. To
that end, I begin with what I understand the MoQ to be, which I call the
'standard account'.
THE STANDARD ACCOUNT
The Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) is an intellectual ordering of experience;
it is a way of organising our knowledge; it is a filing system for the
contents of our mind.
It postulates that the fundamental reality is Quality or value. All things
come from Quality, and it is Quality that draws all things into being from
Quality. All that exists is a form of Quality, and nothing exists without
Quality.
The first distinction that is made in understanding Quality is a distinction
between Dynamic Quality (DQ) and Static Quality (SQ). DQ cannot be named and
cannot be described. It is the cutting edge of experience. It is
pre-intellectual awareness. DQ does not fit into any intellectual system; it
is the ragged edge at the border of all such systems. DQ is the driving
force of evolution, the lure which all of existence pursues.
Sometimes, a DQ driven evolution creates an evolutionary leap. Something new
comes into existence. For this new thing of value to be maintained in
existence it must 'static latch'; that is, it must be able to generate a
particular pattern of value which persists over time, either on a continuous
basis or a continuously regenerated basis.
These static latches form the known world. They are the stable forms of
Quality.
Static Quality can be named. It can be classified and analysed. The
principal classification of SQ is a division into four levels. These levels
are discrete and do not overlap. Moreover, all that we presently know can be
classified and described according to these four levels, except for DQ
itself, which, to repeat, remains outside of all realms of classification.
The four levels are: inorganic, organic, social and intellectual. (For the
sake of simplicity the inorganic can be taken to include the quantum level,
although perhaps this level could constitute its own 'zeroth' level).
The inorganic level refers to atomic and molecular behaviour. Any object can
be viewed as existing at the inorganic level. For example, a rock is a
pattern of inorganic value - it's constituents parts value their current
relationships more than any other alternative (eg disintegration). In the
original flux, before there was either matter or time, Quality was found to
lie in a certain structuring of quantum forces. [Here an astro-physicist can
fill in the gaps].
The inorganic level is shaped by the laws of physics. These laws are a
codification of the value choices made by atoms and molecules.
The organic (or biological) began to develop when a particular molecule made
a DQ leap into a different pattern of behaviour. 'Biological evolution can
be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic level
discover stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic forces at a
superatomic level.' The DQ innovation and static latch at the organic level
was the molecule DNA. In practical terms this level can be considered as
anything which can be described with reference to DNA.
The organic level is shaped by the law of natural selection. This law is a
codification of the value choices made by organic patterns of value.
Uniquely (so far as we know), the human species is able to experience two
further degrees of static quality.
The social level is the 'subjective customs of groups of people'. This sense
of 'social' does not apply to anything non-human. The DQ innovation and
static latch which enabled the social level to come into being was the
development of language. It is possible that this static latch was
supplemented by the further DQ innovation and static latch of ritual, but
that is a moot point.
The social level encompasses an enormous variety of human behaviour. It can
be understood through the values which govern it. The social level is shaped
by laws, customs, mores and religious practices (eg against murder,
adultery, theft) which are enforced by soldiers, policemen, parents and
priests. These laws are what preserve the existence of social patterns of
value from a degradation into the biological patterns of value on which the
society depends. The social level is also ordered through the celebrity
principle, which articulates the governing social values. Celebrities are
those people who exemplify the values of the society, and who gain social
rewards (principally wealth, power and fame) as a result.
The intellectual level is 'the level of symbolic social learning', the 'same
as mind'. It is the 'collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the
brain, that stand for patterns of experience'. The DQ innovation and static
latch which enabled the intellectual level to come into being has not been
satisfactorily determined.
The intellectual level is shaped by the notion of 'truth', which stands
independently of social opinion. There is no link between celebrity and
truth. The guardians of the intellectual level are, variously, the members
of the Church of Reason. Intellectual 'laws' (eg logic) are a codification
of the value choices made by intellectuals.
A culture is a combination of social and intellectual patterns of value. The
twentieth century can be understood as a contest between social and
intellectual patterns of value.
PROBLEMS WITH THE STANDARD ACCOUNT
There are main concerns that I have with the 'standard account' of the MoQ.
1. The definition of the intellect used by Pirsig is too narrow to function
as a description of a fourth static level. What has been known to the wise
for millenia has now been (ironically) confirmed by scientific analysis
itself; that is, our assessment of intellectual truth cannot be divorced
from our emotional intelligence and maturity. As Antonio Damasio has
written, 'It does not seem sensible to leave emotions and feelings out of
any overall concept of mind'. Consequently any account of a stable fourth
level has to give an account of the role of emotions - this Pirsig does not
do.
2. Describing the fourth level as 'intellectual' implies that much of
specifically human quality is classified as social, which is significantly
counter-intuitive. This seems either Procrustean or a major platypi
generator. Those elements of human life which do not fall naturally in the
field of logic or scientific thinking are deemed to be social level products
(that is, putting it differently, their quality is primarily assessed in
social terms). So: a Shakespeare play has primarily social value; such
intellectual value as it contains can be abstracted away from the dramatic
context without diminution of Quality. Similarly, psychotherapy can be
exhaustively analysed in terms of social value (making well-adjusted
citizens) and intellectual value (fostering the ability to carry out logical
and scientific reasoning). I think that this is a distortion of human
Quality, that is, it does not provide a high Quality account of those things
which we value. (Pirsig makes this point in ZMM; it is one of the
discrepancies between ZMM and Lila)
3. Looking at history, we can see many societies where intellectual values
have been able to flourish, yet we would not consider such societies to
operate on a higher scale than alternatives. The clearest example is Soviet
Russia. Putting Sputnik into orbit was clearly a triumph of intellect, yet
that triumph of intellect occurred in a society where the wider values
(human rights to the forefront) were systematically denied. If human rights
are seen as the arena of conflict between the third and fourth levels of the
MoQ then it is incoherent to make the flourishing of intellectual values the
definition of a fourth level.
4. There is an explanatory gap in the standard account - what is the
'choosing unit' of the fourth level, the equivalent of the cell or the
social unit? Whatever the determinant values are for the fourth level, there
must be something on which those values operate, which responds to that
Quality. Just as DNA responds to the 'law' of evolution, and human beings
respond to the mores of society, so too there must be something which
responds to whatever the 'laws' of the fourth level might be. The intellect,
for reasons related to point 1. cannot perform this function.
5. It is not clear that 'intellect' does not function at the social level,
viz 'the manipulation of symbols'. The DQ innovation and static latch which
enabled the social level to come into being was the development of human
language, and human language is par excellence an example of symbol
manipulation. Furthermore, the various elements of human life, most
particularly the way in which human society is dependent upon the use of
tools, means that there are clearly intellectual elements involved in all
stages of human evolution. The fourth level might be distinguished from such
intellectual activity through a particular process of refinement or
abstraction - yet this is not a clear change of level. Analagously, the
flight of an eagle is a long way from the first creation of a cell wall
through DNA developments - but they are both adequately characterised as
'biological', ie, governed by DNA.
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). Such an individual has freedom of choice and is thereby open to
dynamic innovation; such an individual is able to develop that freedom
through the development and application of the virtues: it is the wise
person that is most free and in touch with Quality, not the intellectual.
[to be continued]
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 Apr 09 2003 - 21:41:08 BST