[MD] Personality types, Royce and the MoQ

[John Carl]

Ok, first, I'm over my limit for the day so please feel free to delete,

second there's a lot of Royce I'm gonna be spouting, so feel free to tune
out now before we get into it...

third, I'm in a loquacious mood and I'm feeling pretty random, so while that
might be enjoyable to mORonists, I apologize to any MoQists for the lack of
structural quality, term paper style, or for that matter, the juvenile
overblown rhetorical flourish I'm bound to wave in front of the bull's horns
every chance I get.

Royce, according to Kuklick believes,

... the true self is a dynamic structure, a conscious life lived according
to a plan.  But in the Urbana Lectures Royce goes further and invites us to
examine what kind of individuals achieve the greatest harmony and what "life
styles" bring about the greatest social harmony....

Key to understanding Royce's scheme of four evolutionary personality types,
is understanding  his doctrine of social Imitation.  He says, "Nothing can
be right for me unless I will it, but, simultaneously, I do not determine my
own purposes without consulting the social order; the self learns to will
through imitation."

This is important for understanding what Royce means by Interpretation also,
 but right now lets go back to his evolving personality types.

And keep in mind that the four personality types he describes, are also
descriptions of societies.   The differing personality types in their ideal
form are what the society is all about.

The first personality type is the heroic or stately self whose deeds compell
a community's admiration.  Whenever the stately self becomes prominent as an
ideal type, a culture will emphasize socially serviceable righteousness.
 Although this type embodies worthwhile elements, Royce contends that it
cannot represent an ethical ideal.  The success of the hero is contingent on
good fortune, strength, and the praise of the world; yet if we are to define
moral goodness in terms of the self, this goodness must be something which
would survive ill fortune, weakness, and worldly contempt.  Consequently,
the stately self cannot serve as a guide for the achievement of universal
harmony: it is an ideal dependent on conditions whch we intuitively feel are
extraneous to virtue.

 Like I'm thinking, if Odysesus  shipwrecked and drowned within sight of
home, would he still be a hero?

The second type of self is the saintly or self-denying self.  Royce argues
that we value this ideal because of its sacrifices and renunciations.  The
mother Teresa adoration effect.  Or Buddhist monks, for that matter.  It
emphasizes that the perfect life is one in which we abandon or destroy our
"worldly" self and seek the peace of resignation.   This ideal appears to
evolve out of the realization that the ethically valuable is superior to
fortune, and leads to the view that the self should achieve renunciation.

Royce is mindful of the insight gained, but still sees this as partial, and
I agree with him.  So does it explain why the MoQ isn't merely, "buddhism
for dummies".  Meditating monks and self-renouncing priests don't actually
get all the much useful work done in their lives, and the societies they
serve are not served well when the highest ideal persons go off and meditate
by themselves all day.  Perhaps a reason why ancient Buddhist societies are
still so behind in development, a question I've asked before.


The next personality type, rang my bell when I read it. He calls it the
"titanic self" and seems to me to be an explication of existentialism:

"From our notion that moral goodness transcends mere circumstance we could
conclude that the ideal self is defiant; the ideal self learns from the
wreck of fortune that we must put ideal value on our "unconquerable soul" .


This titanic or defiant self is Royce's third type, but he will not accept
it as ultimate.

So right there, I was kinda disappointed, and yet a bit elated also.
 Disappointed that I'm not done, and elated that I'm not done.

So before we get to the forth type, let us recap,

the Stately Self;  typical of primitive tribal heroes and Greek mythic
ideals. Deficient because it weds virtue to social triumph; inadequate
because it makes social position, and not the whole social order its measure
of social worth.

the Saintly Self; typical of Buddhist and Christian Monks and hermits;
deficient because it removes social triumph from virtue - it cannot better
society as a whole when it's removed from society.

The Defiant Self, which we see arising in Western Democratic fashions
glorifying "the loner" and rooted in the ideas of Existentialism;  deficient
 in  its asserting that the social order itself is unnecessary for the
ethical ideal.

Royce declares that we must surpass the saintly self because it seeks
excellence only in the renunciation of social position; similarly, the
titanic self fails because it assumes self-assertion in the absence of a
social order.

I see his point here.  If you are influenced by the social influences, the
highest ideal  cannot be attained completely independent of society.

Royce finds the ideal in the fourth personality type--the Loyal Self - and
he goes on to make this incredible Philosophy of Loyalty into a very
interesting metaphysics, using the logical system he developed in the early
years at the turn of the century.


So... Loyalty, this is the issue at last.  I quoted the last page of my
dynamically configured Lila, The Lila without covers, because it struck me
so aptly, so pointedly.  Something that engaged me enough to say, "here's
what I'm loyal to".

My fascination with  The book you can't judge because it's missing its
cover... inspires me to describe the rest of it.   The spline reads "Lila"
but not in some publisher's printed font, but my own sloppy  hand, written
in sharpie,  so I can pick it off the shelf.

The front of the coverless book isn't blue, it's white. It doesn't have a
bird or a boat, but just four little words.  The first words of the book,
actually, if you don't count the title.  Words which tell us where the Great
Author's loyalty lies and answers my koan I've used before in my efforts to
overthrow the hierarchical interpretation of the MoQ - that is, if a
Chemistry professor works hard to convey intellectual patterns so he can
keep his social job and support his biological family, what level is really
"on top" ?

Four little words which confirm the relevance of my "m"etaphysics of
Quality, which I'm sure I'll  talk about more in the future.

Four little words, almost too sacred to define in black and white, but
that's the way the book presents to me, whenever I see it, it's new cover,
it's new front page, a very old and important idea, and one by which I can
use to judge, what Is Good, and what is not?  Need we anyone to tell us
these things?

Need we?


John