Expanding on the previous remarks...the most basic social unit can't be "where sexual reproduction occurs" because it must be prefaced by the process of choosing a mate. In Lila, Pirsig buckets this process in biological. But is this process of choosing a mate not influenced by obvious societal status?
Fashion, which is certainly a characteristic of society, certainly influences who we find attractive or not. Perhaps the line isn't black/white, but a gray area where one dissolves into the other. Dan On Sunday, August 10, 2014, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings. > > Well I got the restrictive casts off and now my fingers are free again to > rejoin the convo. > > Yay! > > And while I'm at it, thanks for the well-wishing and support. It meant a > lot. > > Now, as I understand Jan-Ander's topic, how does the evolutionary step from > mere-biology to biologically social patterning occur, in its most basic > form? > > It seems to me that the most basic social unit is when sexual reproduction > occurs. The most basic society there is, is the society of male and > female. When sexual reproduction enters the picture, it makes possible the > transmission of a far greater array of experience and organisms that > require sex to reproduce are the very first social organisms, when > construing "society" by the broadest definition. Confining the definition > of "society" to human society, as Pirsig does, is fine. I can go along > with that altho it ignores a fascinating world of non-human co-operative > patterning. The only quibble I'd have with it then is construing any > non-social humanity. That seems impossible. Humans, qua humanity can only > survive in social groups and there is absolutely no evidence of any > pre-social humans ever. > > Thanks again and glad to be back. > > John the healing > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Hello Jan, > > > > Splish, splash... taking a bath... > > > > If you are talking about the MOQ, then social patterns have nothing to > > do with groups of individuals. You seem to be equating the meaning of > > a society with the meaning of social quality patterns which will only > > lead to confusion. > > > > Social patterns cannot be seen. They exist in the mind, not in > > physical reality. No matter how closely you examine the man you will > > find nothing to lead you to believe that he is President of the United > > States. His is a title, not something anyone can see. > > > > Glad you read Big Sur... I am halfway into The Tropic of Cancer. I > > downloaded Sexus but haven't started it yet. Looking forward to it > > now. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Dan > > > > http://www.danglover.com > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Jan Anders Andersson > > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Hi all or am I the only one left in the tub? > > > > > > I’ve read Henry Millers ”Big Sur and the oranges…”p. ”But what I’m > > leading up to … what makes painting painting.” p 98 > > > > > > I find Henrys book The Rose Crucifixion, Sexus , part III, ch 9, pages > > 283 - 296, more overwhelming and a nice example of the difference between > > the two levels. This is a part where he isn’t talking about himself so > > much. (according to step two, from the organic into the social level..) > > > > > > ”The world would only begin to get something of value from me the > moment > > I stopped being a serious member of society and became - myself. The > state, > > the nation, the united nations of the world, were nothing but one great > > aggregation of individuals who repeated the mistakes of their > forefathers.” > > p 283 > > > > > > Again > > > > > > Jan-Anders > > > > > > 7 aug 2014 x kl. 10:43 skrev Jan Anders Andersson < > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > >: > > > > > >> Hi all again > > >> > > >> Its going to the end of the summer again. > > >> > > >> I have done some research and I have come to the conclusion that the > > beginning of step two is when two or more organical ”items" benefit from > > cooperation instead of striving for themselves. It could be by symbiosis, > > or organisms with identical DNA but with cells that have different roles, > > that are together evolutionary superior to individually organised > systems. > > >> > > >> Transposed to human and animal organisations this means that groups of > > different members playing certain roles are making better results than > > individuals. > > >> > > >> Nice and short, yes? > > >> > > >> Jan-Anders > > >> > > >> > > >> 8 jul 2014 x kl. 19:49 Ant McWatt wrote <[email protected] > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > > >>> Cheers for that Jan. > > >>> > > >>> It's really heartening to read that someone somewhere has made > careful > > and constructive use of the various MOQ texts and papers out there > > especially that 1999 paper that I co-wrote with Eric Priezkalns (which is > > rarely mentioned). Strangely enough, I was just speaking to Eric > recently > > (after about a gap of a couple of years). He "officially" gave up > > philosophy a few years ago but I am encouraging to return to it even in > an > > informal way. It would be great if I could convince him to write another > > philosophy paper but We will see! > > >>> > > >>> http://robertpirsig.org/Evolution.htm > > >>> > > >>> Eric also has a blog which (thoough not related directly to the MOQ) > > has many interesting insights of his over the years. This can be found > > here: > > >>> > > >>> http://halfthoughts.com > > >>> > > >>> Eric (also a mathematician) was probably the most gifted individual > > (intellectually) that I met at the Liverpool Philosphy Dept. and has > > recently retired in his mid forties! > > >>> > > >>> Otherwise, I better say that I completely re-wrote our 1999 paper as > > an addendum for my PhD so - especially as I only "nailed down the > concepts > > of change and space-time in my own mind by the time the PhD was finalised > > in 2004 - it's probably better for the "average" MOQer to use that as > this > > "Step Zero" that you and Arlo have been discussing recently! The > addendum > > can be downloaded for free at: > > >>> > > >>> http://robertpirsig.org/MOQTime.htm > > >>> > > >>> Best wishes, as ever, > > >>> > > >>> Ant > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ----------------------------------------- > > >>> > > >>> Jan Anders stated July 7th 2014: > > >>> > > >>> 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." > > >>> > > >>> (Quoted from LILA, Chapter 11) > > >>> > > >>> 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. > > >>> > > 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 > > > > > > -- > "finite players > play within boundaries. > Infinite players > play *with* boundaries." > 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 > -- *Dan* 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
