[Jan-Anders] I'd like to complete step two first... 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.
[Arlo] The same comments I made about "step three" apply here as well. As you narrow in on the boundary between biological and social patterns, you will likely find a more 'fractal' space than a clear, single line. This is because, as with the carbon atom being the catalyst for evolution from inorganic to biological levels, you are looking for not only the potentiality for evolution but at the simplest proto-patterns that may, at the level, not appear as 'social' when contrasted with the amazingly complex social milieu surrounding us today. As I mentioned, Michael Tomasello's work "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition" also examines the 'bridge' between biological and social existence in our species. In doing so, he traces what he calls "the possibility for shared attention" to specific neural structures in the evolving human brain. Before cries of "reductionism" resound, keep in mind that he is not saying this neural space 'caused' social behavior, any more than Pirsig is saying the carbon atom 'caused' biological existence. What both Pirsig and Tomasello are doing is looking for that 'latch' (Pirsig in the inorganic level, and Tomasello in the biological level) than served as the catalyst for dynamic evolution. Just as all biological life, from the simplest single-celled organism to the homo-sapien, owes its existence to the unique capacity of the carbon atom, all social life, from the simplest act of joint activity to the splendor of the World Cup, owes its existence to the unique capacity of a neural mass allowing for shared attention. Here is a derivative paper that explains it: Do you see what I see? The neural basis of joint attention. Redcay & Saxe. http://www.dscn.umd.edu/DSCN/papers/Redcay_Saxe_JA.pdf Of course maybe others have other theories or ideas as to what the 'carbon atom' was that provided the catalyst for evolution from the biological to the social level. Tomasello, obviously, is not writing in direct correspondence with Pirsig, even though they map together very nicely. 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
