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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
