On Wednesday 20 April 2008 Matt writes to Magnus: Matt: <snip> Matt: A nice taxonomy. I guess my question would be what the use would be of extending social patterns all the way down to cells. The trouble with the levels is that Pirsig created four out of simplicity, but the more we think about them, particularly when fitting in non-human animals, the more being limited to just four seems pernicious. And the trouble with discussing them is that there are few rules for figuring out what the best way is to go on them. Once we toss fidelity to Pirsig overboard, what's the criteria for success in drawing up a set of explanations like this? I would always suggest to people that if they are going to tinker with Pirsig, particularly with the levels, to be as explicit as you can about _why_ you suggest the things you do, why you would say that biological patterns _are_ senses, which on its face seems a little anthropomorphic, or why cells have social patterning. We can use the categories well enough, as you did, but why would we use them? They are a little counter-intuitive, to both common sense and Pirsigian common sense, so the question should be faced, "Why take this understanding, as opposed to others?" You might sense it as better, but not everyone may have that sense. <snip>
Hi Matt, Magnus, and all, I tinker with Pirsig¹s levels. My problem is that I do not know how to write about the undefined. I have to make a distinction between totally undefined and partially undefined. That distinction is Conscious/Mechanical. This distinction is not original with me. It is found in esoteric literature going back as far as Pythagoras and beyond. The musical octave is a metaphor/analogy of that description. My brand of the octave is based on ways for REPRODUCTION. CONSCIOUS is partially undefined. No one knows what I am thinking. Some things just can¹t be put into words! There is some quality of my experience that is undefined, the conscious part known as pre-. I do not know if this methodology can be reduplicated for understanding, if something must be irretrievably lost by remaining undefined? If so, an appeal to a mystical (undefined) (conscious) perception might throw some light on the subject. We can experience the undefined. Joe On 4/30/08 9:13 PM, "Matt Kundert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt: > A nice taxonomy. I guess my question would be what the use would be of > extending social patterns all the way down to cells. The trouble with the > levels is that Pirsig created four out of simplicity, but the more we think > about them, particularly when fitting in non-human animals, the more being > limited to just four seems pernicious. And the trouble with discussing them > is that there are few rules for figuring out what the best way is to go on > them. Once we toss fidelity to Pirsig overboard, what's the criteria for > success in drawing up a set of explanations like this? > > I would always suggest to people that if they are going to tinker with Pirsig, > particularly with the levels, to be as explicit as you can about _why_ you > suggest the things you do, why you would say that biological patterns _are_ > senses, which on its face seems a little anthropomorphic, or why cells have > social patterning. We can use the categories well enough, as you did, but why > would we use them? They are a little counter-intuitive, to both common sense > and Pirsigian common sense, so the question should be faced, "Why take this > understanding, as opposed to others?" You might sense it as better, but not > everyone may have that sense. 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/
