Hi Peter and Dan (Dwai & Khoo mentioned)
7 Jan. Peter wrote:
after Dan had written:
> > > As you know, I don't subscribe to your theory that the MOQ is a
> > > "meta-level." The MOQ is Robert Pirsig's idea and as such is a
> > > collection of intellectual patterns of value.
Peter:
> I think 'meta-level' is appropriate because openness to the dynamic is
> like seeing the whole context (the actual levels) by stepping beyond
> the limits of the 4th level, the limitations of SOM. Besides MoQ is
> metaphysics!
Right, the MOQ is a metaphysics, exactly what I have struggled
to express. Besides the 4th. level is static and can't contain the
very DQ/SQ system, it must stand back, even from its own top
notch. There has been references to Godel's theorem, something
about a system never being totally closed, maybe this is a
manifestation? Pirsig's utterings about the MOQ as an intellectual
pattern is - as said - a snag resulting from the sheer enormity of
the task , he couldn't test all statements.
Dan:
> > > That aside, the MOQ clearly states that culture is a collection of
> > > social and intellectual static patterns of value of a given
> > > people. A SOM culture (in which we all live) might say that
> > > culture is formed by the collective agreement of individuals
> > > within a given group. I don't see much of a difference. It's more
> > > a matter of where one starts, I suppose.
Peter:
> A culture is a collection of individuals with shared characteristics
> and behaving in similar ways; that covers microbes too. Culture looks
> to be a social pattern as it needs a group to work. But could not
> animal cultures, such as a tribe of chimpanzees or even slime moulds,
> be examples of how the social level first emerged out of the
> biological?
I too used the "culture" concept about microbes to demonstrate
its looseness and the difficulty with using it as some intellectual
master-pattern (re. Pirsig's immune system) and concluded that it
is a social concept. This far Peter and I agree, but MOQ's "social"
isn't quite the same as SOM's (its own intellectual level) A slime
mould is not a Q-society, nor is the chimp tribe, perhaps not even
the hominides of various "erections".
The social hallmark is the notion of an existence beyond life
(biology) and that arrived with the first burial rituals and these are
from around 10 thousand years ago. This definition I find
corresponding with MOQ's about the upper level being a break
with the former level. Animals may have an understanding of
death, even show something like mourning, but NOT anything
about an existence beyond (I dare say).
> It seems that although most social patterning that we
> could recognise would pertain to humans nevertheless other species
> also exhibit social patterns. The social pattern of language is
> possibly the largest determinant of a persons culture and this also
> confirms culture to be a social pattern.
We agree about "culture" as a social entity, and you seem
reasonable about the social in a MOQ context so this is just an
info. There once was a moqtalker - Magnus Berg (he may still be
listening in and have bells ringing if his name is mentioned "Hej
Magnus!!") who got hung up in the social concept and saw
societies all over the place, the organs of a body one and even
the cells of an organ another, it became absurd. Pirsig wrote (to
Paul Turner)
There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of
"social" down into the biological with the assertion that, for
example, ants are social, but I have argued that this
extends the meaning to a point where it is useless for
classification. I said that even atoms can be called
societies of electrons and protons. And since everything
is thus social, why even have the word? I think the same
happens to the term, "intellectual," when one extends it
much before the Ancient Greeks.*
But trust Pirsig to be ambiguous, he refuses to offer a definition
of both social and intellectual that sets the limits, but just says
that it's useful to limit (he doesn't even say THAT) societies to the
human race and intellect to the Ancient Greeks. This confirms
that SOM=Intellect, but even here the ambiguity of "extends it
much before the Ancient Greeks". And the asterisk that refers to
an Oriental Intellectual level as if there can be a non-S/O
intellect.
Bo before
> Right now I'm out of range of the MOQ material, but as I recall it >
> Pirsig's definition is the ability to manipulate the (other levels' >
> patterns > stored as) symbols in the brain OF THE MANIPULATOR, not to
> > manipulate other people, but we may return to this.
Peter:
> Yes, like the intellectual activity of writing an essay would involve
> building up a coherent set of metaphors to describe some topic;
> culture say?
It looks as if you agree with this (Pirsigean definition of intellect)
but IMO it's useless. To have words (which are symbols) for
things and phenomena and be able to manipulate them by
language's grammar syntax is not the intellectual LEVEL. People
of old (of the social era) had language, even written in the
cuneiform or as hieroglyphs. They hardly wrote essays, but later
social era writers - the biblical prophets - used a lot of
metaphors. So even that isn't intellect.
Intellect is the realization of the symbol/what's symbolized
difference, that language is something different from what it
treats; the subject/object distinction! People of the (deep) social
era did not see it this way, language was something most real
and powerful, it contaiend God's will, it was also the rituals that
could invoke good and evil.
Bo (from old)
> > > > He is correct about psychiatry being the 4th. level's immune
> > > > apparatus, but the "culture" concept muddles things. There are
> > > > cultures that don't have a notion of disturbed people as
> > > > mentally ill, they believe them possessed by evil spirits or by
> > > > the devil ...etc. So my conclusion is that these are social
> > > > level cultures, only the West has this "psychic" immune system
> > > > and consequently is the only intellectual level civilization.
> > > > This proves for the umpteenth time that intellect is the S/O
> > > > distinction, in this context the mental/corporeal,
> > > > psychic/somatic variants.
Peter:
> What about Japan, Australia, New Zealand and many other sub-cultures
> throughout Asia and the other continents wherever a more secular
> foothold can take place and where technology develops?
Regarding Australia and New Zealand they are as "western" as it
comes. About Indo-China, China, Japan I honestly don't know if
they have the "psychic" explanation of disturbed people. If
anyone knows please inform us ...Dwai, Khoo?
> Thinking about it now it seems to me that culture could be a general
> term to describe the social level.
That we agree about.
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
