Hi all, More in response to Sam's long post.
Sam now sets up a distinction between the ZMM Narrator and the character of Phaedrus in LILA, saying that the Narrator is more pragmatic in not chasing the metaphysics, while Phaedrus in LILA pursues the metaphysics with sometimes reckless abandon. I agree that this difference exists between the two characters, but I don't see the point in making the distinction. The literary and philosophical goals of the two books are very different, with ZMM telling us that we shouldn't need to be told what Quality is, and LILA saying "But in case you do, here's a metaphysical framework that will assist you." I'm not sure, but I think Sam sees these somewhat contradictory themes as evidence of a contradiction in the Metaphysics of Quality, a contradiction that is not apparent to me. sam: The second element relates to the differing status of Socrates, the founding father of metaphysics. msh says: Sam then correctly goes on to say that in ZMM the Narrator becomes furious when he sees that "Socrates is not using dialectic to understand rhetoric, he is using it to destroy it." He sees dialectic as the usurper, "muscling in on all that is Good and seeking to contain and control it. Evil." So, no problem. This supports the main idea of the book: we don't need someone to tell us what is good, not even Socrates (Plato). sam: But in Lila, the status of Socrates has changed. Now he is once more the martyr to the independence of intellectual patterns from the social level: that 'truth stands independently of social opinion'. Instead of being an instrument of evil, he has become an instrument of a higher evolutionary level, and therefore more moral than those who oppose him. msh says: Here I have to ask for some textual support. Where, in LILA, do you see Socrates re-enthroned, where does Pirsig claim that "truth stands independently of social opinion?" In LILA, I see that an intellectually dominant individual has a closer connection to truth than one who is dominated by social custom, but this doesn't mean that all social customs are ignorant of truth. sam: This is why I think there is a problem with the structure of the MoQ. In ZMM the Narrator quotes Kitto saying: "aret� implies a respect for the wholeness or oneness of life, and a consequent dislike of specialisation. It implies a contempt for efficiency - or rather a much higher idea of efficiency, an efficiency which exists not in one department of life but in life itself". msh: I think the problem you see is self-created. You are trying to reconcile the words of two different characters from two different books which were written for two different reasons. You are trying to coalesce into one the Narrator of ZMM, the Phaedrus of LILA, and author of the two books. sam: So what is the problem? The problem is the question that I began with: where does individual worth, aret�, fit in with the MoQ? Or is it something to be left behind? msh says: Again, for me, aret� fits in at the social level, and is left behind once the intellectual becomes dominant. For me, the desire for aret�, rooted in competition and war, plays a vital role in the battle between the biological and social levels, and in the various skirmishes within the social level itself. As Kitto says, aret� is "what moves the Greek warrior to deeds of heroism." Once the cultural illusion of self-reliant individuals is shattered by intellect, there remains little need for aret�, unless one finds oneself suddenly needing to "beat a young braggart at throwing the discus, challenge the Pheacian youth at boxing, wrestling or running; flay, skin, cut up and cook an ox." sam: In terms of what I wish to pursue in my life, it is precisely that pursuit of Quality, the 'wholeness of life', which corresponds to aret�, or individual worth, or (as I put it in my essay on moq.org) the eudaimonia which I find to be of high Quality, both static and dynamic. Whereas the intellectualism of Phaedrus, and the construal of the fourth level as represented by that character, I find to be sterile, of little interest. msh says: This assumes that a dominantly intellectual person is one dimensional. In fact, an intellectual might recite poetry or play chess, or prepare haute cuisine, make love and money, and even skin an ox if necessary. That is, the dominantly intellectual individual exists atop the other levels, not apart from them. IMHO, of course. :-) I offer my last paragraph above in response to Sam's remaining three. Best to all, Mark Steven Heyman (msh) -- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com Grace: Mark, my Suburu is idling roughly. Mark: Call a mechanic. Grace: You know, for an intellectual, you're not much use. Mark: Being an intellectual doesn't mean you can't adjust a carburetor... it just means you don't have to. Grace: I'll call my son... Mark: There you go... .. Donnie Darko: Dad, I'm crazy. Dad: You're not crazy. I used to be crazy, but you're not crazy. I know I'm not the best communicator, but whatever happens to you, whatever shit you come up against, just be honest, tell the truth, even if they do look at you funny. They will. They'll call you fool, tell you you're wrong. But there's something you gotta understand son, and that's that almost all of those people are full of shit. They're all part of this great big conspiracy of bullshit. And they're scared of people like you, because those bullshitters know that you're smarter than all of them. You know what you say to people like that? MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
