Hi Marco and MD.
Bard's last post I will answer separately soon.
My initial lines:
> > - but according to Pirsig it's the other way round
> > and finally my point: The Q-biological level's evolution
> > which would have filled the earth was arrested by the
> > Q-social level which in turn threatened to suffocate
> > existence and was halted by the Q-intellectual level
> > ....whose "evolution" now is going amok and only can
> > be brought under control by a new Q-development.
> > A groping 5th level?
Marco's comment:
> My opinion is that really the evolution of the social level has not
> yet completely halted. I see many *evolutions* in the structure of
> families, nations, and so on. Intellect is still working on it.
First of all, my grand sweep which sees the rising change curve as
Intellect's evolution, is limited to the western and /western-like
democracies*, the greater part of the world is still social-level
focussed.** Within this sphere INTELLECT IS STILL WORKING
ON IT (bringing the social patterns under control), but these
intellect-influenced social structures (Family of liven-ins,
gay/lesbian couples, single mothers. Church of liberals. Law of
lenience ..etc.) are for gratifying intellectual value of the individual,
not for social value of the community.
*) The Far East is a special case where (according to LILA)
Intellect and Society has found a "modus vivendi".
**) That is not to say that Intellect hasn't emerged, but it does not
dominate.
You say that the evolution of the social level has not
yet completely halted, but if we stay within the western sphere I
think it is harnessed by Intellect and that it is Intellect which is "out
of control", naturally, what is there to check the topmost level? To
see the workings we may go down a step and look to Society's
relationship with Biology.
Biological value of proliferation reigned for aeons in cycles of life
and death. Its evolution brought about ever more complex species,
and when the primates appeared social-like patterns started to
show; co-operation for mutual protection. At this point they were for
the mere benefit of life (all levels starts in the service of its parent),
but as the primates evolved into humans their social pattern grew
to a complexity that went out on a purpose of its own and started
to to "control" biological life. This happened by creating realities
that transcended the individual: Sanctums, taboos, mythologies,
commandments from God ..etc.*
*) As the MoQ has done away with the subject-object metaphysics
its no use thinking in the SOM way of these myths and gods
existing only in the minds. It was a step up on the betterness
ladder.
My point is that after coming under Society's control the biological
pattern (homo sapiens) that carried social value could not evolve
further, but started to domesticate (other) animals and breed them
to fit the needs of society. Likewise, the social pattern (democracy)
that carried intellectual value can't evolve, except forcing other
lesser social institutions (family, judicial system, church ..etc.) to
toe its own line ... which can be compared to breeding animals for
its own purpose in the example above.
> About the "the rate of change curve" you mention, other rapid growths
> happened in the past. One began at the time of the Greeks and lasted
> about 800 years, followed by the relative stasis of the Middle Ages.
> Then a new growth begun with the Reinassance, and we are still in this
> phase.
Of course there was a great upheaval at the time you mention
followed by the stasis of the Middle Ages. Pirsig interpreted it as
the emergence of the subject-object metaphysics (ZAMM) yet a
technological/procedural change curve would not register this. If
Homer returned from 900 BC(?) to 100 (BC) may have lamented the
decline of the "old gods" but he would not have had any trouble
orienting himself (except being blind!), the Greek did not introduce
any new technology. The Romans did to an extent, but even far
into that era a returned Homer would have been fully at home. The
tools of artisans and peasants were the same as he knew. Yes, I
risk the assertion that that was the fact far into the second
millennium and that it was only the Enlightenment Age and the
Industrial Revolution that made the curve rise.
And after learning about the MoQ I immediately identified the curve
with a development caused by the SOM and eventually - as my
SOLAQI idea struck - as the Intellectual "evolution" in the same
way that biology and society had had their.
> In both cases, IMO it's simply the intellectual level (that is still a
> baby) at work.
"Baby" definitely compared to the rest of the static sequence. If a
curve were drawn it would look somewhat the same as the change
one: The formation of matter 20 (?) billions years ago, the first multi-
cellular organisms (on earth that is) 1.5 bya, the humanoids and
societies 4-5 millions years ago and the intellect 3-4(?) thousand
years ago. Wish I was able to draw this graph (can't anyone do it
on a computer?) It would not surprise me if the emergence of a 5th
level were "predicted" to around our time.
Thanks for your attention.
Bo
PS
My message unleashed David Wilkinson completely (:-)), his last
post looked impressive, but I could not make much out of it in a
MoQ context and that is and that is what we are discussing.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
