Fucking good article , Dave 2010/8/18 david buchanan <[email protected]>
> > Andre said: > Mr. Pirsig suggested (from the MOQ point of view) that to extend notions of > 'society' as pertaining to the organic, and perhaps even inorganic levels as > seeming to 'destroy the meaning of the word 'society'.It weakens it and > gains nothing'(Annot.5) A society of sheep? A society of cells? A society of > grains of sand(a mountain or a beach)? > > > > Magnus replied: > I think that comment was directed at me, but I fail to see why it destroys > the meaning. And if it does, then the meaning wasn't that clearly stated in > the first place. I mean, how *is* the social level defined in Lila anyway? I > can only remember a couple of examples, but nothing like a formal > definition. ...Defining features? Those were just examples. Not a > definition. What do they have in common? What separates them from biology? > How are they dependent on biology? If you find crisp and clear answers to > those, I'm all ears. > > > dmb says: > > > I'm with Andre, as usual. It destroys the meaning of "social" to extend it > down into ant colonies and wolf packs because the defining feature of > society is its opposition to the biological level. Pirsig points out that > the distinctions between these levels are not very original and in this case > the line between the social and the biological was pretty clearly drawn by > Freud. Not that he invented it, but he gave it shape in our time such that > most people think in Freudian terms whether they realize or not. So, anyway, > take a look at this brief description from Wiki's article on Freud and read > it with the biological-social distinction in mind. > > "In his later work, Freud proposed that the human psyche could be divided > into three parts: Id, ego, and super-ego. Freud discussed this model in the > 1920 essay Beyond the Pleasure Principle, and fully elaborated upon it in > The Ego and the Id (1923), in which he developed it as an alternative to his > previous topographic schema (i.e., conscious, unconscious, and > preconscious). The id is the impulsive, child-like portion of the psyche > that operates on the "pleasure principle" and only takes into account what > it wants and disregards all consequences.The term ego entered the English > language in the late 18th century; Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) described > the game of chess as a way to "...keep the mind fit and the ego in check". > Freud acknowledged that his use of the term Id (das Es, "the It") derives > from the writings of Georg Groddeck. The term Id appears in the earliest > writing of Boris Sidis, in which it is attributed to William James, as early > as 1898.The super-ego is the moral component of the psyche, which takes into > account no special circumstances in which the morally right thing may not be > right for a given situation. The rational ego attempts to exact a balance > between the impractical hedonism of the id and the equally impractical > moralism of the super-ego; it is the part of the psyche that is usually > reflected most directly in a person's actions. When overburdened or > threatened by its tasks, it may employ defense mechanisms including denial, > repression, and displacement. The theory of ego defense mechanisms has > received empirical validation,[43] and the nature of repression, in > particular, became one of the more fiercely debated areas of psychology in > the 1990s.[44]" > > > As I read it, the Id corresponds to the biological level and the super-ego > corresponds to the social level. If that's true, it would sound right to say > that biological values are child-like hedonism or impulsive pleasure seeking > regardless of consequences. By contrast social level values are aimed at > pushing back at exactly that. The impulsive desire for sex, violence, food > is what makes the biological level work but social level moral codes are, > more or less, an elaborate harness for these impulses. They're all about the > regulation of who gets to bang who and who is allowed to use violence and > who can eat what. The law of the jungle becomes something to be repressed, > re-directed, re-channeled, and otherwise tamed. As Freud saw it, human > culture was the attempt to make these impulses into something more refined > and acceptable. Lust becomes romance. Violence becomes valor and heroism. > Sublimation, he called it. We put scented candles and marble sinks in our > bathrooms to make our animal functions less disgusting. Man is the animal > who thinks his shit doesn't stink. But this is an improvement because it > also means that Man is the animal who thinks rape and murder is wrong. > > > But I'm not pushing Freud here. In fact, I think his view is way too dark. > Studies in evolutionary morality show that animals aren't quite as savage as > the Victorian imagination had it and neither are we. Chimps, for example, > know when they've been cheated and can return kindness. It's not too hard to > see how our basic moral codes evolved quite naturally out that capability. > But there is still a pretty clear distinction between their mating habits > and our marriage laws. Well, except if you're in Vegas on a bender. > > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
