From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 15:00:21 BST
Hi Paul,
> If I understand the essay correctly, you feel that it
> is the individual's capacity for judgement through
> emotional intelligence, not only the intellect, that
> represents the evolutionary advance to a discrete set
> of patterns of value.
Yes - it is that which is doing the judging which is the static latch of
level 4; that thing is, in my view, imperfectly characterised as
'intellect'. I prefer 'autonomous individual' or, possibly - and this is
where my thinking is headed at the moment - 'soul', understood
teleologically, after Aristotle, as that which animates the individual
(anima = soul), and so is the seat of judgement and free will, source of
eternal value etc.
> This sounds very similar to my use of the term
> 'dynamic intelligence'.
That's why I pointed you in the direction of the essay.
> By this term I am trying to
> convey something that is not the result of accumulated
> intellectual 'knowledge', but is more the art of
> perception through the mind. One quality of this
> intelligence is an alertness to the process of thought
> itself and its tendency to stick to a set of fixed
> patterns and categories. I am suggesting that this can
> bring about a fresher and more harmonious movement of
> the mind (harmonious with the Quality it is responding
> to) and more harmonious activity as a result.
Very happy with that, especially the 'alertness to the process of thought
itself'.
> Now, I am speculating that this perception is what
> responds to Quality as a whole - emotional, aesthetic,
> rational, and all other aspects. Depending on context,
> it may be relevant to elevate one aspect over the
> others, but not habitually or universally. My issue
> with metaphysics is the elevation of the rational,
> analytical perceptions of Quality to the status they
> enjoy now. Maybe it's down to the 'success' of the
> application of this aspect to our environment that it
> dominates now?
Happy with that too. "The meta-narrative of rational primacy" is a) the
problem with Modernism and b) the problem with making 'intellect' the
defining feature of level 4.
> What springs to mind here is Pirsig's original
> classification of romantic and classical quality. This
> 'art of perception' has been fragmented. And the
> intellectual level as described by Pirsig seems to
> embody the values of the classical mind only -
> underlying form, ratio, analysis, order, function. I
> think this is where you are coming from?
Precisely so.
> Now, using Pirsig's SPOV model, I am writing off
> metaphysics as being the product of the intellectual
> level dominating other patterns of value by the
> reification of the faculty of 'rational' perception at
> the expense of all other aspects of perception.
I don't think metaphysics should be written off, just relativised (or made
redundant). Have you read any Wittgenstein (or Rorty, or Matt's essay)?
> To me,
> eudaimonia comes about through freedom from dominance
> by any pattern of value by responding to as much of
> the whole (aesthetic-emotional and
> rational-functional) as we can through the art of
> perception through the mind, or dynamic intelligence.
I begin to demur here, with 'through the mind'. I think eudaimonia is
whole-body.
> The paradox for me is that I've used a metaphysical
> model to articulate an argument to throw out
> metaphysics! Babies and bath water springs to mind.
> The problem I have is the idea of a non-intellectual
> metaphysics, or a metaphysics that is more than
> intellectual? But that is what you're trying to do,
> isn't it?
"For the clarity that we are aiming at is indeed *complete* clarity. But
this simply means that the philosophical problems should *completely*
disappear. The real discovery is the one that makes me capable of stopping
doing philosophy when I want to. The one that gives philosophy peace, so
that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring *itself* into
question. Instead, we now demonstrate a method, by examples; and the series
of examples can be broken off. Problems are solved (difficulties
eliminated), not a *single* problem." (Wittgenstein, Philosophical
Investigations § 133)
> I think you see something similar to what I have
> termed the 'art of perception through the mind' as a
> better description of the 4th level?
Yes.
> In doing this
> you're trying to expand the metaphysics to include
> non-intellectual aspects of perception or judgement.
Yes, primarily wisdom.
> You've also strongly identified this faculty with the
> emergence of individuals.
Individuals understood in a particular way (as autonomous).
> This approach may have more
> cash value than mine! It's certainly an approach that
> interests me.
Don't know if it has more cash value, but I'm glad you find it of interest.
I'm finding it more fruitful than the 'standard' MoQ in resolving
ambiguities and contradictions. Any and all queries, quibbles and questions
on it are welcome!
Cheers
Sam
"Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to
have gained a great deal." Wittgenstein, 1948
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 23 2003 - 15:17:35 BST