Hi Dan, >> Dan, how is biological patterns different than plain old nature, and are > we >> so sure that there is no intellect or art in nature, and social >> patterning >> for goshsakes, so that it can be called just biological? > > Hi Carrie > > I am not exactly sure what you're asking here. The point I was attempting > to make is that in the MOQ, experience comes first. In scientific realism, > matter comes first. When someone says something like this:
[carrie] Thanks for responding Dan. I see what you mean about realism, and I wholeheartedly agree with the MoQ view that experience precedes matter or mind. But I was asking about the MoQ level, as Pirsig describes in Lila, where the 2nd level is biological. Does being of the 2nd level, preclude other patterns? For instance, pretty much all life that I can think of, lives according to some sort of social arrangement, and there are pantheistic ideas, that nature is imbued with a very special kind of mind, is that impossible in the MoQ? I was just curious about that, is all. > > [Krimel] > Biological patterns are experienced irrationally. They are unnamed. > > Dan comments: > > They are basically saying biological patterns come first, that they are > 'out there' waiting for us to experience them. Do you see my point? > > Now, I don't think biological patterns are different than plain old nature. > In the MOQ inorganic and biological patterns correspond to physical > patterns. We can see them. We can pick them up and examine them under > microscopes. > > Social and intellectual patterns correspond to non-physical patterns. We > cannot see them. Robert Pirsig uses the example of the President of the > United States. There is no way to physically determine that the President > is the President. It is a social pattern of value. Think of the Prince and > the Pauper, if you will. > [carrie] Oh yeah. I remember that part. I thought to myself, "well maybe I couldn't, but I bet Sherlock Holmes could," Because real social patterns usually have very physical effects upon people. Even under their skin. But mainly, yes, I get your point and have no disagreement. I just guess I still have questions about "plain old nature" being only the second level,and nothing more. In many ways, I think of nature as a source of human values. Didn't the old Taoists say the same? > Social and intellectual patterns are human perceptions. It may well be that > wolves have a type of social pack mentality but they filter their world > through wolf senses while we filter ours through human senses. > > Does that help at all? If not, feel free to say so. > > Thank you, > > Dan It helped a great deal, Dan. Thanks for the good discussion. Here's hoping for more! carrie 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
