From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 15:06:44 BST
Hi Wim, (also a note to Bo if he's reading),
: You wrote 19 May 2003 12:30:46 +0100:
: 'I think "eudaimonic" is a more fruitful description of level 4, ie it's not
: just that I don't like the standard account - even if these flaws in the
: standard account were overcome, I would still prefer a "eudaimonic"
: description.'
:
: So our discussion should shift to your reasons for preferring your version
: of the MoQ (contrary to your essay, which was structured as: standard
: account > problems > solution > possible arguments against that solution).
Possibly, but only if we exhaust the 'problems' side first. I think if all the problems I perceive
in the 'standard' MoQ were removed, then I would simply shut up about eudaimonia... A discussion of
why would not necessarily be relevant in this forum, and I think you're familiar enough with my
wider views to understand why I have the preferences that I do.
: You gave a hint with:
: 'one of the things I most like about the "eudaimonic" thesis, [is] clarity
: with regard to ethical motivations'.
:
: Aren't you talking about 'morality' in the old, SOM-ruled sense here? I.e.
: 'morality' only in the sense of 'values ruling/guiding individual
: behavior/actions' and not in the sense of 'values constituting
: reality/experience'?
Partly, yes. I think my thesis provides more clarity (for me) about types of morality/ethics. I
don't claim (which you seem to imply) that such things govern the whole.
: Your replied 19 May 2003 12:30:46 +0100 with 'OK' to my:
: 'The reality we try to describe is our experience and the fact that
: sometimes we do NOT experience subject-object (or even subject-subject)
: differentiation indicates (and -if we rule out delusion- proves) that
: descriptions requiring choosing/acting subjects are false.'
:
: I have the slight impression that your Eudaimonic MoQ DOES require
: choosing/acting subjects to be intelligible...
Only in part. I've been thinking that my way of constructing level 4 really does tie in with Bo's
SOLAQI thesis, ie it is only when you have a sense of self that you get subject/object thinking -
and therefore, large parts of level 4 are constructed around SOM. (Note to Bo - I still have qualms
about SOLAQI, but with regard to the I bit, not the SO bit). What I don't believe (or argue for) is
to say that level 4 governs the whole system. Rather the opposite.
: You 19 May 2003 12:30:46 +0100 summarized your view on the distinction
: between 3rd and 4th level most succinctly in:
: 'I see the distinction being defined by the emergence of a static pattern of
: (level 3) values that is able to dissent from the dominant patterns which
: created it, and thereby 'go off on patterns of its own' - I call this the
: autonomous individual.'
:
: This seems muddy to me: A 3rd level pattern of value (not 'values' in my
: view!) that is created by other 3rd level patterns of value??? And you mean
: 'go off on purposes of its own'. So the same 'choosing unit' can latch both
: 3rd level patterns of value (before 'going off ...') and 4th level patterns
: of value (afterwards)??
It's a 'machine language interface'. As I recall your using that imagery yourself, and then, when
criticised for it, pointing out its origin in Lila, I don't see why it's "muddy". Although perhaps
I'm not clear - again. :-(
It's good to talk!
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 : Fri May 23 2003 - 15:07:27 BST