On Tues. 22 Jul 2008 1:08 PM Krimel writes to Bo and anyone <snip> Among the many reasons why I regard the "levels" as secondary is that they are not even remotely "discrete" as Pirsig claims. While the confusion is most obvious at the intellectual level, it exists even at the inorganic level which is not "discrete" from the biological level at least not in the way Pirsig frames it. All life on earth is based on carbon chemistry. In fact carbon chemistry is its own branch of chemistry. It is called organic chemistry. But Pirsig places it on the inorganic level. One of the problems some of our intellectually challenged brethren here on the MoQ have with evolutionary theory is how life begins. However and whenever the division between the living and the nonliving began it certainly involved organic chemistry and when we look at life itself on a molecular level we see no clear distinction between what is alive and what is inert.
The "distinction" between the biological and social levels is equally arbitrary and certainly not discrete. Social organization or the mutual interdependence of individual members of a species is an evolutionary strategy employed by many species in nature. From coral to ants and bees up through primates many organisms owe their survival to mutual support, division of labor and cooperative behavior. Pirsig chose to specifically exclude all of this and include only humans at the social level. In so doing he misses out on the evolutionary function of social structures and on the origins of human social interaction that are so obviously rooted in primate social behavior. <snip> Hi Krimel and all, I disagree that ³levels² are secondary in that they are not even remotely ³discrete². The vocabulary for discussing levels is undefined/definedDQ/SQ. IMO This is a much better observation than the periodic table of elements, Hydrogen, Helium, etc. Hell if I can¹t name more than a couple of elements, my education has been sadly neglected. I would much rather propose an order in existence lower to higher or higher to lower depending on your point of view. The periodic table is a nightmare in a description of life, as you point out. As far as a clear distinction between what is alive and what is inert, I agree the molecular level is no place to look. I guess how I go from 1 to 2, reproduction, might show that the organic level exists differently from the collision at the inorganic level. Not that the inorganic level does not have a presence in the organic level. It just exists differently. Joe On 7/22/08 1:08 PM, "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The "distinction" between the biological and social levels is equally > arbitrary and certainly not discrete. Social organization or the mutual > interdependence of individual members of a species is an evolutionary > strategy employed by many species in nature. From coral to ants and bees up > through primates many organisms owe their survival to mutual support, > division of labor and cooperative behavior. Pirsig chose to specifically > exclude all of this and include only humans at the social level. In so doing > he misses out on the evolutionary function of social structures and on the > origins of human social interaction that are so obviously rooted in primate > social behavior. 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/
