[Krimel said] 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.
Ron prev: Per 21st century western human culture using classic Newtonian physics, yes. Those definitions are defined but I rather doubt Tarzan or cheetah would describe them that way. [Krimel] The rising of the sun, blowing of the wind, shaking of the earth and speed of falling are unaltered by the definitions either of them attaches to the events. Their descriptions only matter to each of them individually or to the extent that they are able to share the experience. Krimel said: 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. Ron; Right, we can only appraise it from a human perspective. It is off base as far as precision and accuracy. Ron: Correct me please but weren't you just arguing that a chimp and a cavalry officer behaved in the same social manner? I think what Pirsig was saying that only members of human society can accurately define human society. Otherwise one anthropomorphizes. If one wants to accurately define Zuni culture one must become Zuni. [Krimel] I am arguing that chimps and ants and cavalry officers exhibit "social" behavior and that any understanding of the MoQ that limits the "social" to humans is flawed. Ron: O.K. I get you now, I agree. But this does have its reservations per your argument above. Human comparisons are going to use human associations. Krimel: I don't think one has to become a Zuni to gain an understanding of Zuni culture anymore that a man can not understand pregnancy without becoming pregnant. After all, an anthro who joins the Zunis does not lose her former cultural perspective in the process. She would only understand what it is like to be a convert to Zuni culture not what it is like to be raised within Zuni culture. See Nagel's paper "What It Is Like to Be a Bat". Ron: right on, but it does increase the accuracy of the appraisal. ANY interpretation, even the interpretation of the participants does not fully cover the definition like the experience of that member of that society. Krimmel (sic) said: 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: you are making my point. [Krimel] If your point is that the "levels" are arbitrary and secondary then that is good news. Ron: Good news it is. "levels" are relative to the society that defines them. making them arbitrary and secondary. Ron: If, technologically advanced extra-terrestrials made contact with us. They would be confined to the biological level? I think MoQ leaves the door open for multiple definitions of patterns within a level. I think this is what Douglas Adams was doing by challenging our assumptions of intellectual beings. I think by virtue of Pirsigs immediate experience, we may only accurately define that which we experience. This is not to mean that other versions are not acceptable. If I was abducted by those hyper-intellectual mice and lived with them in their culture for a vast amount of time, I could give an accurate human appraisal of mouse society. I think Pirsig leaves the door open to Moq and does not limit it to a anthropocentric perspective. He does remind us that anthropomorphizim will exist and the only TRUE description could only come from a member, the only perspective we can ever get of another species society is a human interpretation. Likewise the only interpretation we can understand of Zuni society is through western social interpretation. Consequently, our interpretation of MoQ is a human western society interpretation of MoQ. It is a one size fits all intellectual method Man, Mouse, Eastern, Western ect.... that may only be accurately define by the culture that applies it. [Krimel] One of the things that sets humans apart from other species is our ability to take on other points of view. We intentionally alter our own illusions if you will. This too is a developmental phenomenon. It begins at about nine months when infants begin to share attention with their caregivers. They look at what is being pointed at and they look at what another person looks at. This ability matures as children grow in a regular pattern that develops in similar fashion across dissimilar cultures. (Suggesting that it has a strong biological basis) It is this ability to see things from multiple points of view that makes us human. Any understanding any of us has of anything will be in large measure a personal, subjective understanding, unique to us. To the extent that our understanding corresponds to the "object" in question or coincides with the understanding of others... Well that's gravy. That's what makes us "sane". Ron: exactly Krimel...it's just plain difficult to argue with you. 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/
