Re: MF Discussion Topic for May 2005 - individual worth

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 12:33:24 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MF Discussion Topic for May 2005 - individual worth"

    Hi all,

    My thanks for all the responses, many of which raised interesting points,
    some of which I even strongly agreed with :o)

    However, with this post I'd like to a) ask one conceptual question in order
    to clarify some of the disagreements - or try to, at least; b) respond to
    MSH on the Socrates point. I shall try and pick up on some other specific
    issues later.

    The conceptual question: If we accept that a person is a forest of static
    patterns, how does DQ interact with those static patterns?

    Is DQ just on the top, ie you have to ascend up the levels to get to the DQ
    (and therefore, presumably, become like the LILA character Phaedrus)?

    Or is DQ the product of the interaction of the various levels (along the
    lines of Mark Maxwell's 'sweet spot' imagery) - and therefore the pursuit of
    DQ involves the enhancement of all the levels in different and mutually
    reinforcing ways? (and therefore we aren't obliged to become like the LILA
    character Phaedrus)

    To put that in graphical terms, is it option a:

           DQ
    L4 ^
    L3 ^
    L2 ^
    L1 ^

    Or option b:

    L4 ->
    L3 -> DQ
    L2 ->
    L1 ->

    ~~~
    MSH's point about Socrates.

    MSH asked for textual support for some allegations about Socrates, Sam
    provided them, then msh says: Here he is talking about what Socrates
    (Plato) thought, in the same way he talks about Descartes. He's not
    claiming that the Metaphysics of Quality re-enthrones Socrates, any more
    than it idolizes Descartes. The ideas of Socrates and Descartes
    characterize past philosophical upheavals, just as do the ideas of the MOQ.

    Sam now says: I think this is disingenuous. According to the analysis
    presented in ZMM Socrates is a villain - Phaedrus is shocked by his
    behaviour, he is privileging dialectic over rhetoric and therefore reducing
    DQ into an idea (to use the later terminology). To then say "Socrates died
    to establish the independence of intellectual patterns from their social
    origins" is to _commend_ Socrates' behaviour, and, in the context of the
    MoQ, it is to place Socrates squarely in the intellectual level. Now there
    are ways to try and reconcile this difference. For example, you could say
    that the ZMM analysis is comparing Socrates to DQ (which he tried to
    intellectually capture - boo!), whereas in Lila Socrates is being compared
    to the social level (which he tried to break free from - hooray!). But I
    don't think it's tenable to say that the MoQ doesn't 'enthrone' Socrates as
    a martyr, and therefore hold him up as someone to be emulated, in contrast
    to the presentation of him in ZMM, where he was clearly NOT to be emulated.

    Regards
    Sam

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
    MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 12:45:45 BST