[Bo] I will continue my reply to yours of the 22th. but first; I suspect you don't "buy" the MOQ basics at all and then it's no wonder you question the tenets derived from them. From SOM seen the level hierarchy is both secondary and an unnecessary complication, about THAT I agree.
[Krimel] I think you are right that at least to the extent that I do not buy into the MoQ the same way that many here do. What I admire about Pirsig is his instinct for seeing to the heart of matter. I think more often than not he is pointing in the right direction but I think too often he doesn't really see the significance of what he is point at or he misunderstand the significance of what he points toward. [Bo] Here we actually agree, my position is that if followed far (deep) enough all levels dissolves into the lower one and that this is in agreement with the MOQ about all levels being out of its parent and "living at home" at first. The discretion only occurs after it is has left home and regarding the inorganic-organic relationship already at the bacteria stage the dead/living distinction is clear. [Krimel] I think we could create any number of level systems that are all inclusive but not necessarily exclusive; in Lila Pirsig talks about one out of many possibilities. I think you read way too much into this set of metaphors. The levels are not discrete and they are not in "conflict" with each other. To the extent that this metaphor works at all it works because stasis at one level allows whole new sets of relationships to occur at the next. The biological level emerges because there is little or no dynamic change in the relationships at the inorganic level. Gravity and the other forces of nature do not change or change very very slowly. Our planet is in a stabile orbit at a fixed distance from the sun and contains a stabile mixture of elements bathed in a constant source of energy. Out of this static mix chemical relationships form and patterns of these chemical begin to replicate themselves into life forms. Life is not in conflict with the inorganic level it just arises in response to aspects of the stabile relationships found here. It emerges because of the stabile relationships at the inorganic level not in conflict with them. [Bo] This is social value in its (biological) parent's service. Once Magnus Berg pursued the social term into absurdity and beyond, but once social value is "off on a purpose of its own" as a static level a totally different picture emerges. [Krimel] Social value is neither in the service of nor in conflict with the biological level. It is one of many evolutionary strategies that organisms employ in the process of replication. [Bo] Well, as said, Pirsig may have gone lightly across some points, but the basics is sound. Let me think. Language has been a bone of some contention at this forum. Before I have maintained that it evolved "inside" the 3rd. level and became the social pattern that facilitated intellect, but perhaps it was the BIOLOGICAL pattern that brought existence to the social level? I believe language emerged about 50 thousand years ago and only then we may speak of a social level in the Quality sense, namely the notion of a reality beyond - transcending - biology. The old (social) myths did not have an afterlife in the spiritual sense, it was simply "business as usual". Again my pet (social) example the Semitic type religions - Islam in particular - that motivates its terror by the promise of a most concrete paradise with eating and copulating. [Krimel] I would say that language has evolved in humans as a result of the evolutionary niche that we have adapted in. In this sense it is a biological adaptation to the conditions we find ourselves born into. I think you miss the mark entirely in claiming that it emerged 50 thousand years ago. I don't think anyone knows when it emerged but almost certainly it was way before that. I would insist that Homo sapiens as a species have always had some form of language and probably Neanderthals and Cro Magons as well. The mythos is a term applied to early attempts to find order and meaning in the world around us. It is an entirely intellectual process of seeking an explanation for why things are as they are. It arises from one of the great abilities that our species possesses which is the ability to find similarity in dissimilar things. It is called generalization and it is the foundation of what we call metaphor. Certainly this performs a social function and is acquired through socialization but it serves a biological function as well. > [Krimel] > Beyond all this is the absurdity of thinking that a set of "levels" so > blatantly focused on human beings can have "metaphysical" significance. As > I understand it, metaphysics is the search for a set of principles that > would apply to any form of "reality" not just ours. [Bo] This I don't get. The levels covers everything. The fact that the social pertains to the human race and as intellect is on top of that it also must include humans is no argument, but perhaps you can elaborate. [Krimel] Sure, metaphysics is the search of a set of universal or fundamental principles that should hold up or be required of reality however one might image it. This set of levels can not have metaphysical significance because it just doesn't apply to any universe that doesn't have humans in it. On the other hand SQ and DQ would apply under pretty much any reality one can envision. [Bo] About "taxonomically lumped this way". Somewhere Pirsig says the same, but the MOQ parts company with SOM at the very start by being patterns of value. P. spends much time in showing that inorganic patterns aren't SOM's "matter", thus 2nd. level patterns don't correspond to "life" .... etc. Most of all that the 4th. level patterns don't correspond to "thoughts". In going from SOM to MOQ one must always apply the SOL that corresponds to the Lorentz Equation needed to go from Newton's physics to Einstein's. Pirsig's original "transformation" (the two lower leves=objective and the two upper=subjective) fails at some very crucial points. [Krimel] Here again Pirsig is pointing in the right direction but fails to see that what he is arguing against is a point of view that died early in the last century. The modern conception of substance is not what it used to be neither is the conception of objectivity. Pirsig's notion of SOM as the boogeyman, arises from a set of perceptions that are outdated. It is true though that while they are outdated they have not been outgrown. Many if not most folks live in a classical world and are behind at least two or three paradigm shifts. Pirsig does perform service in helping some of those folks begin the process of making these shifts even if he does not seem to have made them all himself. 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/
