Hello Dan, and all, welcome back into the boxing ring JC! It’s all patterns anyway, but I am looking for the most basic pattern where more than one are using organic patterns for their own benefit, but still dependant on the inferior level. I don’t think it it as a sharp line, or edge, more like a dotted line, emerging into a clear border.
The sometime called organic level and sometimes called biological level is confusing here. Jan-Anders 10 aug 2014 x kl. 08:17 Dan Mascola wrote<[email protected]>: > 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 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
