Hi Krimel and DMB
Krimel said: The problem here for the MoQ is that Pirsig denies the
importance of any species but humans at the social level.
dmb says: No, the problem here for you is that want to equate human societies
with their biological antecedents. Drawing a distinction between the two is
not the same as saying that animals don't function well in groups or that
this is unimportant. Pirsig denies social level values to the animal world
simply because that what the term means in the MOQ. To insist that social
values exist among animals is simply shows that you're confused about what
the term refers to. Believe me, I understand that there are many other ways
to use the term but that's just not how its used in the MOQ. I think one
would have to be a reductionists to say that "separating out human social
behavior from biology is artificial" as you just did. In any case, you're
simply denying the distinction.
I've tried to get through to you two before but you usually just ignore me, are
you just having eyes for eachother?
Anyway, if you happen to read this, I'm "actually" with Krimel on this one. I
don't think Pirsig has any good reasons to limit the social level to only
humans. DMB, you seems to only take his word for it but have you really thought
about what the social level is? Have you thought of any way to make a
metaphysically relevant? As you describe it, the MoQ becomes almost as human
centric as Ham's theories.
I guess you haven't read it but in my latest essay "The levels undressed", I try
to define what a level is, starting with the two assumptions discreteness and
dependence. Using that definition, I simply iterate through the levels one by
one to see what they are. And as you may guess, humans are *not* involved in any
one of them.
Magnus
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/
