Hi SA
Heather Perella wrote:
> Magnus about Pirsig:
>> If he had investigated these dilemmas, if he had
>> *trusted* the
>> metaphysics he had discovered, he would have been
>> able to find much
>> better answers, and in doing so, discover so much
>> more about the nature
>> of the levels. But instead, he just said:
>> - Phhhff, guys, guys, I was just kidding. Don't take
>> it so literally.
>
> SA: This is why I find the levels an analogy of the
> moq. They are useful, but to take the levels too
> literally is to say that static patterns are all the
> exist.
Not at all! That's absolutely not what I mean.
> Dynamic quality is still here. The levels
> are, as we know, static patterns.
Absolutely right!
And since, as you said, the levels *are* on that static side of quality,
we *can* define them as rigid as humanly possible without any negative
consequence whatsoever.
> Magnus:
>> BTW, the dilemma in the quote above is very simple
>> to solve. Atoms are
>> not societies because they are not held together by
>> social value, but by
>> inorganic value. On the other hand, ants are not
>> held together by
>> inorganic value, there's no gravity,
>> electromagnetism etc. involved.
>
> SA: Yes they are. Ants are made-up of atoms. Don't
> see what you mean here.
> I do think your society analogy works, but you
> do need to explain what you mean by societies in the
> context you understand. It is understandable.
I'm afraid I didn't understand much of that. Can you re-read it and
clarify?
> I've
> also found the social level being restricted to humans
> as not allowing dq to 'flex its' muscles' in the
> social level for anthropology has contributed much
> into the field of societies by learning about
> primates. Each level must be open to new information
> or else the levels would simply die away.
Yes, in human societies, the social patterns are garbled by the
intellectual (more moral) value exerted by the humans in the society.
Social value becomes much more clear in more basic societies, such as
anthills.
>
> Magnus:
>> They are also not held together by biological value,
>> if it were, the ant
>> finding food wouldn't tell the others about it but
>> just stay there and
>> eat it. It's simply a textbook example of a social
>> pattern.
>
> SA: Oh, I see what you mean now. They do seem to
> assert social patterns. I understand ants pass
> information via biological values, but the posturing
> is social it would seem.
Exactly, the information passing using biological value becomes the
language of the society. And that language can later be used by
intellect if the society becomes complex enough.
Magnus
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/
