From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 07:10:45 BST
Hey Sam,
First off, I apologize for leaving you hanging on the 'Philosophy and
Theology' thread from some months back. It went like this: After reading
your Eudaimonic MoQ essay, I thought that that provided a better background
for hashing out the issues that developed in the thread. Seeing a great
deal of potential for improving on the MoQ in your ideas I started tinkering
with a response to your overall Eudaimonic thesis (the 'review' I once
alluded to). As I worked on my response, I noted a great deal of harmony
between the Eudaimonic MoQ and many of Matt Kundert's ideas about Pirsig
presented in his 'confessions' essay (after reading that I ran out and read
a book by Rorty and started on a response to that essay as well). Somewhere
along the way, the two pieces merged and by the end of the summer I'm hoping
to offer up my thoughts on the whole thing to the forum (heck, I've been
here for like 5 years and have never bothered to post an essay, it think
it's about time). Thanks for being patient (patience is a virtue you know
:-). Now then....
SAM
> My dissatisfaction with how the MoQ describes marriage (at least as I
experience it) was indeed the
> original seed for my eudaimonic thesis. See my post from January 2002:
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0201/0062.html
>
> I think there is potential in the correspondence - eros = biological level
love, agape = social
> level love, amor = fourth level love. I'll think about that some more, but
it seems good (and
> eudaimonic!). Just as the higher levels are built upon the lower
elsewhere, it seems to me that you
> can only have amor if the lower levels are also satisfied, which means,
amongst other things, that
> adultery (to my mind) cannot be amor (although consider also the 'sex,
lies and videotape' example I
> asked Paul about).
RICK
It would seem to me that if our equation of the 3 loves to the upper 3
levels is right, then there are several conclusions we can draw about love
and marriage. Adulterous sex is immoral because it's putting a biological
pattern of values (eros) over a social one (agape). But more interesting is
that it would seem putting agape over amor is equally immoral. That is,
staying socially married to one, while another is your true amor, is also
immoral. We might be seeing two different 'adulterous' patterns here. An
immoral 'biological adultery' founded in sex and another kind of adultery
which maybe we can call something like "emotional cheating" which is not
itself immoral, but renders the pre-existing marriage immoral because it's
reduced to a social pattern standing in the way of the higher species of
love. [I couldn't find the 'sex, lies, and videotape' example in the
archives so I can't comment on that.]
SAM
> In terms of the desire to see a debate focussing on actualities, rather
than theory, this seems like
> a good place. (Although I don't foresee any agreement being found - I
can't imagine any logically
> compelling argument that would change someone's mind on this.) I think the
debate sharpens on this
> question: what has more value - a person or an idea? I would say a person,
but the Pirsig of Lila
> says an idea, or - to be more precise - he defines a person this way: "A
human being is a collection
> of ideas", which I think is nonsense. (I would say a human being is a
pattern of values, composed of
> each level, not just level 4 - although that is where I would locate
something important). So
> Pirsig's position is that the value of a human being is derivative - a
human being is of value in so
> far as they are a source of ideas. In Kant's terms, human beings have
value as means rather than
> ends. And so on. I think I've waffled on enough about this.
RICK
In the post on marriage which you credit as the seed of the Eudiamonic
thesis, you refer to the discussions about describing the Intellectual level
in terms of the generation of new ideas. I myself was one of those
tinkering with such a theory at the time. I had written an essay (which I
never bothered to post) casting the 4th level as a pragmatic 'marketplace of
ideas'. My intent was to extend the marketplace metaphor and compare
Pirsig's thoughts about human rights being based on the protection of ideas
to an 'antitrust' code which protects competition in the marketplace. In
the end of the essay, I mused about the uncomfortable feeling the MoQ gave
me by asserting that human beings were only worth protecting because they
were sources of ideas. Although I was (and still am) fond of the
marketplace theory as a tool for interpreting Pirsig's vision of the 4th
level, I set out in search of a more human centered theory. Matt's essay
was big piece, your essay was another. Waffle on all you'd like my friend.
SAM
> BTW the quotes from Campbell were depressing, and display a mind-numbing
conformity to conventional
> thinking. To say (of personal love) that "That's completely contrary to
everything the Church stood
> for. It's a personal, individual experience, and I think it's the
essential thing that's great
> about the West and that makes it different from all other traditions I
know" simply displays
> astonishing historical ignorance. Where does he think the language for the
troubadour tradition came
> from, if not from the 'Song of Solomon' and all the contemporaneous
commentaries on it? Campbell
> seems blithely unaware that Bernard of Clairvaux was the generation before
Chretien de Troyes, and
> that the troubadours adapted religious language for their purposes in just
the same way that modern
> pop songs are derived from religious singing. (If you're interested, see
'The discovery of the
> individual, 1050 - 1200", by Colin Morris). Grrrr!!
RICK
I'll put Morris on my reading list. As for Campbell, first off, I think the
"church" to which he is saying amor was contrary to was the "corrupt"
medieval church against which the Troubadours were rebelling. Moreover, I
think the unique tradition Campbell is referring to is not merely 'personal
love' but is 'person-to-person love' (as he explains in the paragraph
immediately preceding the quote you snipped). That is, while the
Troubadours, as you say, may have 'adapted religious language for their
purposes', their purposes were different than those of the religious singers
from whom they coped the language. That is, the troubadours weren't singing
about personal love for god, they were singing about personal love (amor)
for other individuals... something that does not turn up in the lyric for
the 'song of solomon' as far as I can tell.
take care
rick
"I love to doubt as well as know." - Dante
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 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 07:14:01 BST