Hello everyone We are human beings; everything we perceive is colored by our human-ness. Other animals perceive the world accordingly. In my opinion, it is arrogant to assume our cultural mores extend to non-humans, kind of like dressing up a dog. It might be good for giggles but it makes no sense. Thast's why RMP suggests drawing a boundary, imo.
Dan On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:37 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John C, > > On 15 Aug 2010 at 9:03, John Carl wrote: > > Dave T and Platt, > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:19 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi David T, >> >> On 14 Aug 2010 at 17:41, David Thomas wrote: >> >> Hi Platt, >> >> > and not to other criticisms of Pirsig's positions, like the social level >> > not being limited to humans. >> >> Since I'm the purveyor of this travesty I would like to know, "Have you >> honestly looked at and thought deeply about the issues I've raised?" >> > > [JC] > I believe, the issue of extending the social level to animals has also been > accepted by Krimel, Bo, Arlo and me. A diverse group! My specialty is > cutting off social patterns at the Mammalian animals, because it makes sense > that the self/group realization is created by infant nurture. > > [P] > The SOL interpretation has been accepted by Bo, Marsha, Mary and me. A diverse > group. Does that make it valid? Hardly. Again, the number of those agreeing or > disagreeing with a certain position is immaterial to its validity. > > [Platt] >> Also, Pirsig indicated very little value in extending the >> social level to include animals. "One can also call ants and bees "social" >> insects, but for purposes of precision in the MOQ social patterns should be >> defined as human and subjective." (LS, No. 49) > > > [JC] > I believe there is an important distinction you're missing here Platt. > Pirsig's wording was that he didn't SEE much value in extending the social > level. This implies that there might be some, but he just didn't get it. I > think this illustrates the difference between Quality itself, and the MOQ as > a framework for discussing Quality. > > Furthermore, for purposes of precision, we should certainly not throw out > all the evidence of obvious social patterning we share in common with wolf > packs, horse herds, and other animals which bond and learn polite behavior > with others of their species. And for purposes of precision, perhaps our > best teacher of what these social patterns consist, is not the one of our > species who was so appallingly bad at socialization that he got tossed into > a mental institution and had to be forced into accepting human social rules > with a sort of "cattle prod" approach. Even as you point out in your > response to Dave below, we all have our own individual blind spots in > life. > > Some members of the pack have sharper social sense, some sharper > intellectual sense. > > It's through an evolving communal process that we are "saved". > > [P] > As has been illustrated here many times, second-guessing what Pirsig says > about > his own MOQ opens up a tangled web of endless argument. Maybe that's why it > hasn't gained much traction beyond this small group. What do you think? > > [Dave] >> But as you say Platt, I could be wrong. But so could Bo. He's just not >> willing to consider that possibility. > > [Platt] >> Yes, and so could Pirsig. So could anybody. I think that's a given, but it >> doesn't hurt to admit it once in awhile. None of us has a monopoly on "the >> truth" much less a "one right way to think." On that I'm sure we would all >> agree, not that that alone would make it valid. :-) > > > [JC] > Well, if we all agree, then I think that makes an assertion as "valid" as > it's likely to get. > > But it only works if we care more about intellectual quality than social. > That means, I care about objective truth, more than I care about social > acceptance or getting to be herd-leader. > > [P] > Well, one's man's intellectual quality is another man's social > go-along-to-get- > along. And "objective truth'' is another arguable notion. I'm always reminded > of Lincoln's observation that: "If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels > swearing I was right would make no difference." > > I guess what is right or wrong about the MOQ will never be settled. We're all > just doing the best interpretation we can. > > Regards, > Platt > > > > 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 > 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
