Thanks Arlo for this summary. I think its now time for discussing step two. The second step in the intellectual journey up the levels. Inability to understand the levels causes a lot of confusion here. We all know that the rules for participation in this forum is at least that you have read ZMM AND LILA. Reading, however but not surprisingly, does not guarantee an understanding of the same. (You see what you see and measure your mate with your own wit that is close to your own mind while his is at a distance.)
The starting point of this discussion is ANTHONY MCWATT of Liverpool University, & ERIC PRIEZKALNS's excellent little essay called "Evolution, Time and order" (full name: The Role of Evolution, Time and Order in Robert Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality"). Step number zero is the one about change. The first step into the inorganic existence was the very first change, which demarked the first occurence of time. I call i step zero as it comes from just nowhere, the mystic area of Q. "The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as the ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is probably `change`. The second one may be `before and after`. From this sense of `before and after` emerge more complex concepts of time." (letter from ROBERT M. PIRSIG to Anthony McWatt, February 23rd, 1998) This was discussed here a while ago in a thread called "step one" which eventually concluded in some kind of common agreement that step one (from the inorganic into the organic level) was by the first succesful reproduction of an organism. Reproduction is the solution to the problem with complicated inorganic patterns depletion by age. Reproduction saves the orginal pattern before it loses its art. Inorganic patterns does not have to reproduce themselves as they are so stable "constructions" already. Now, what about step two? In Lila we can read that it is something about how the reproduction change from direct selfcopying into the superior schem called sexual reproduction which results in different copies that fit together in a social organisation that is superior to pure biological patterns. The social patterns are controlling and using the biological patterns, are dependant of biological patterns but social patterns are using biological structures for its own purpose. "the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis to permit sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a Dynamic advance. So is the collective organization of cells into metazoan societies called plants and animals. So are sexual choice, symbiosis, death and regeneration, communality, communication, speculative thought, curiosity and art. Most of these, when viewed in a substance-centered evolutionary way are thought of as mere incidental ?properties of the molecular machine. But in a value-centered explanation of evolution they are close to the Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern of life forward to greater levels of versatility and freedom." Taken from Lila, somewhere) I think its very important to have a clear understanding of this. (Prepare for using the slow parts of your brain. When you get it, you're automatically qualified for a free trip to the Chronosynclastic Infundibulum by Prometheus-5. Look! No drugs! Dreams and fantasies only!) When we have done step two clear we can go on to the next step: step three. The understanding of the evolutionary step from the social level into the intellectual level. Jan-Anders 7 jul 2014 x kl. 19.21 skrev ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR: > [DMB] > But some merely use the quips and quotes that seem to validate them. I don't > what that's called, but it ain't the love of wisdom and I can only see the > most common and crude value in that; ego" > > [Ant] > I fully agree with Dave here. I would just add that some of these latter ego > driven people primarily just like the attention. > > [Arlo] > You two are so naive. ;-) > > See, I think its often a bit more insidious than simple ego or attention. For > example, it was painfully obvious from his many posts that, for Bo, "SOL" was > a means to elevate Euro-Christian culture as morally superior to those > inferior dark-skinned Muslims. Remember that, in this formulation, > "Christianity" became an intellectual-level pattern, while "Islam" was an- > INFERIOR- social-level pattern. That entire endeavor was predicated on a > desire to demonstrate why his culture and it's (ostensibly) dominate religion > were morally superior to others. Remember that this is a guy who felt the MOQ > provided moral authority to criminalize wearing a hijab. > > Platt, in a similar vein, had a two-fold agenda. At times his MOQ was altered > to be "inorganic-biological-social-individual" as a way of denouncing > whatever collectivist boogeyman Fox was warning about that particular week. > At other times, his Fox-fueled rage at the media and academia led him to > condemn intellect as "SOL" as a means of demoting it dominance over society. > In this regard, he promoted the SOL as a way of ensuring that society should > not follow intellectual principles (this was the guy that once said to me he > supported a state's right to make interracial marriage illegal). In both > ways, the SOL served to ensure that white-conservative values had moral > dominance over immigrant-liberal (SOL) values. > > With Marsha the SOL made strange bedfellows, as it was obvious that for her > the SOL gave her a way of rebelling against 'male-dominated' institutions. > "Intellect" was, basically, just dumb, boring white males, and the SOL gave > her a excuse to ignore whatever 'they' said. This is why Bo, at least, made a > token attempt to 'reason' the SOL, even if his reason was always dubious and > sophomoric (although laden with delusions of grandeur). Marsha flat out > rejected reason itself, and flaunted her incoherence as evidence of moral > superiority over all the dumb, boring white males who just didn't 'groove'. > For Marsha, Lila was the hero to emulate; Phaedrus was just another stupid > man trying to tie her down with reason and intellect. > > John, well, he's the guy who insists he understands Einstein's Theory of > Relativity while at the same time denouncing it for 'ignoring Spacetime'. > "Yeah, sure Mr. Einstein, if your Theory of Relativity is so great, then how > come you don't account for spacetime?" To which I can only really shake my > head and sigh. I think, legitimately, John is stuck in having normalized > ZMM's problem space. For him, the division of 'art' and 'science' is natural, > and the solution is to keep them functionally separate but kinda slosh them > together a bit. When he asked me "would you want a sculptor repairing your > motorcycle?" it was one of those bizarre questions that really evidences a > gross misunderstanding of Pirsig's entire undertaking. But, of course, that's > where the ego comes in, and he simply turns all the evidence of this > misunderstanding into proof of his genius. His incoherence, in his mind, is > proof only that no one understands his brilliance. > > "Where is art?"... Indeed, Mr. Einstein, just where is spacetime in your > theory, you loser, bow to my genius. > > In the end, Ant, as Ron White is fond of saying, "you can't fix stupid." > > > > > 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
