does the social level only apply to humans? i think this is a commonly held moq pos, but where does pirsig say it?
--- On Fri, 25/7/08, Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Levels? > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: Friday, 25 July, 2008, 2:45 PM > [Krimel] > It would seem that you both are willing to ascribe at least > social level > behavior to primates. This is my point. The MoQ does not > allow this. The > social level only applies to humans. > > Ron: > well you just said Humans are Primates "great > apes" to be exact. > again I propose that the level be defined by the society. > "one chimpanzee is no chimpanzee" this keeps with > Pirsigs MoQ > by only being able to accurately asses Human definitions. > assessing chimpanzee definitions is well, limited. Keeping > in mind that we are in no way objective . > So it only makes sense that we may only assess Human > societies > with any kind of accuracy. The same way we may only asses > native > culture by the definitions of the participants. > If we can not decipher those definitions then we may not > get an accurate > appraisal. > > [Krimel] > But many things are objective in the sense that they govern > the lives of > both Tarzan and Cheetah regardless of their definitions. > The sun rises and > sets, the wind blows, the earth shakes, if they fall from a > tree they will > accelerate toward the ground at 9.8 m/s/s. > > Pirsig specifically says that the social level only > includes humans. So any > talk of commonality in form or function between human and > animal social > behavior is off base. Such commonalities must be part of > the biological > level. But if you remove the biologically based elements of > human social > behavior you really aren't left with much. > > Ron added: > This is what I was trying to get through to Bo, the > intellectual level > is meaningless without a cultural definition. Western > culture defines > intellect as analytical thinking. Bo is correct in this > way, but is > analytical thinking representative of the universal concept > of an > intellectual level? hardly, without cultural definitions > the level has > no meaning. > There could very well be an ant hill in Botswana somewhere > that dwarfs > the intellectual capacity of human beings and we'd > never know it. > that's whats kinda cool about the MoQ. > > [Krimel] > Or as Douglas Adams would have it, white mice might in fact > be protrusions > into our dimension of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional > beings. But even > then under the MoQ they would still be confined to the > biological level. > > 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/ Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au 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/
