On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:13 PM, David Thomas wrote: > Continued from Part 1 > > Continuing to explore what "the problem" might be if we use Pirsig's > ordering method and ask, "What comes first?" > He answers, " Dynamic quality,...,creates this world in which we live," > But if you ask, "How?,"What it's source?" Etc? The mystics and myths of > religion and science speak volumes but never arrive at an answer all can > agree on. There was nothing then there was something is about the best we > get. But we must agree that this is a pretty discrete and radical change. > Nothing then the expanding and evolving inorganic level. If we stay away > from all the religious implications of DQ (which of course Pirsig does not) > so far so good. > > But as we move to the next level, biological, we immediately run into a > problem. Where does organic chemistry lie? Certainly it can't by definition > be inorganic. But if the line dividing the biological from the inorganic is > life there are clearly organic compounds that are not biological. Methane > for instance is found across the universe but life has only been found here. > Oh that cross-dresser carbon! Diamond follows the inorganic rules, snot does > not. Houston we have at least one problem. Pirsig claims that the MoQ covers > everything and the levels are discrete. Where does organic chemistry lie > within it? Do we side with Magnus and add a level? If so what does it do to > the whole system? If carbon straddles the line between inorganic and > biological what about level discreteness? The moral order? Is carbon as snot > more moral than carbon as a diamond? I don't know but it is at least a real > problem. > > Moving on up the biological level we quickly encounter the problem that was > identified very early on in these discussions. Social qualities, patterns, > on the biological level. Pirsig quickly cleared this up indicating that he > was talking about qualities of human societies. So the talk turned to what > were those qualities that distinguished animal societies from human > societies. Language was a good first guess. My most recent guess is design. > Most usually associated with objects ranging from stone tools to skyscrapers > the process is also used in seeking social changes of all kinds. It is an > abstract mental process. Design theorist J Christopher Jones says that at > its simplest design is "to initiate change in man-made things" be they > "capital goods, laws, buildings, opinions, public services, processes, etc" > in short almost everything people are involved with. It requires a basic > concept of time, past, present, and future. Jones continues, > "Designers...are forever bound to treat as real that which exists only in > the imagined future and have to specify (find or create) ways in which the > foreseen thing can be made to exist. The first human to start fire without > saving embers was designing. So was the first to attach a stone point to a > shaft. So was Cinderella's evil stepmother. > > But whether it was language, design, or a host of other candidates, "What is > the essential quality necessary to make the jump from animal social to human > social level?" > > I think it can be said with confidence that at the biological level it has > something to do with the evolution of human brain. Since intelligence, like > social qualities, seems to span from deep within the biological level all > the way up to the intellectual it does not seem to be a good choice of > terms. Needs to be something that separates, transcends, intelligence. Mind > would be a reasonable term if it were not so deeply tied to Descartes and > SOM. The term with all the qualities necessary to jump from animal social to > human social is INTELLECT. The emergence of the human social level was/is > dependant on the emergence of the INTELLECT. Pirsig at best got the two > upper layers bassakwards. If the emergence of the biological level emerged > with the first faint glimmer of life how is it that, even though Pirsig > admits that the intellect emerged long before the intellectual level, that > the emergence of the intellect however dim does not signal the arrival of > the intellectual level? With this realization I finally made the decision > that Bo was and is right the MoQ is screwed up. Just not as he thought. It > is probably screwed up beyond reason or repair. And that is without getting > into the mystical access to DQ or trying to figure out where dreams may lie.
> > Aren't you sorry that you wasted your time? I'm not. My intellect needed the > exercise. > > Dave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyTyKe6mlwo&feature=related Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
