Marco to Platt
Thanks for your answer, Platt. I just comment on few points.
PLATT'S QUESTION:
> > > Everyone runs the same "me" program that doesn't belong to anyone?
MARCO'S ANSWER:
> > If you mean here that "my" life is not really mine, as I'm composed
of a
> > mix of patterns coming from the past, inhabiting me temporarily, and
> > lasting after me.... I agree. But also I'd say that, during this
time
> > while they are inhabiting me, this "me" exists... and partially this
> > "me" is able to create / change patterns as it's also a dynamic
entity.
> >
> > The problem is the "belong" term. We all share all our "me"
programs....
> > (a sort of Sovietic Kolkhoz :-). So the patterns don't belong to
anyone
> > as a private property... they belong to everyone.
PLATT'S EXPLANATION:
> From Chap. 15 of LILA: "This body on the left and this body on the
right
> are running variations of the same program, the same "Me," which
> doesn't belong to either of them. The "Me's" are simply a program
> format."
MARCO'S REPLY:
Thanks for the clarification. Exactly before these words Pirsig writes:
"This Cartesian "Me" is a software reality, not a hardware reality".
Here Pirsig does not seem to deny the existence of a personal "Me". He
just want to state the separation of the conscious intellectual
(Cartesian) self from the biological self. He states that the
intellectual "Me" does not belong to the "biological "Me" and vice
versa. I think the right question should be:
"Every human body runs the same "Me" intellectual program that doesn't
belong to any body?".
My "software" is the me who is talking now. I just was offering that
according to the MOQ also this intellectual self is made of a mix of
patterns that I share with all the other persons. That's why I say that
my patterns don't belong exclusively to my self.
PLATT'S QUESTION:
> > > Cells have a special intelligence all their own?
MARCO'S ANSWER:
> > Again a problem of terms... IMO intelligence is the specific biologi
c
> > function to read into reality. It's the tool for intellect. The
> > "intelligence" of single cells is obviously another thing. It's
their
> > capability to interact with reality in order to preserve and
duplicate
> > their life. It has nothing to do with intellect so I'm cautious
using
> > the term "intelligence" (however it's not so bad, as they use the
> > "intelligent" term also for uranium bombs ;-| )
>
PLATT'S EXPLANATION:
> From Chap. 15 of LILA: "If that's what it was, the cells had won.
> Probably they had bled enough to throw off infection, then swelled to
> slow down the bleeding, clotted, and then slowly, with the special
> intelligence of their own that had nothing to do with Lila's mind,
they
> remembered how they had been before she had cut them apart and
> they carefully joined themselves back together again. They had a mind
> and will of their own."
MARCO'S REPLY:
These biologic intelligence, mind and will are IMO good metaphors. Once
I wrote that the Giant is self aware... but, of course, not in the same
way of humans. It was another metaphor. Those metaphors work if it's
clear that the intelligence of cells, like the social awareness, are a
different thing.
PLATT'S QUESTION:
> > > Cooperation without coercion is a devastating fiction?
MARCO'S ANSWER:
> > Please, explain me this point... especially the "devastating"
adjective.
PLATT'S EXPLANATION:
> From Chap. 24 of LILA: "What the Metaphysics of Quality indicates
> is that the twentieth-century intellectual faith in man's basic
goodness
> as spontaneous and natural is disastrously naive. The ideal of a
> harmonious society in which everyone without coercion cooperates
> happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devastating
> fiction."
>
Nice. In the Italian version, the translation for "without coercion" is
"spontaneously". Maybe there's not a huge difference but it seems it
changes a little the statement. In Italian, it sounds that it's not
spontaneous but it could be as well personal: a self-determination to
fight the biologic instinct. While the original "coercion" sounds as
something coming from external.
According to the original statement, where this coercion comes from?
Pirsig is here talking about the necessary social control of the
biologic forces. Where the social control comes from? Cooperation
(q-society) has been induced by the need to surpass the biologic level.
But let's remember that everything has been induced by the need to
escape from preexisting cages. Evolution as the spontaneous escape from
a static condition is one of the points of the MOQ. It's the "cause"
which can be read both as "external coercion" and "self-determination"
(as J. Marder shows in his essay available on the forum). So I agree
with you that TODAY the social level has to be (fairly) coercive in
order to preserve the necessary cooperation. But in the beginning
cooperation has been a dynamic and spontaneous process.
Actually I do believe that usually a spontaneous cooperation is a good
way to evolve. As long as cooperation is spontaneous, it has huge
dynamic capabilities. I'm translating the essay "Zen and the art of
revolution" for the Italian forum, and I think that the examples of
revolution (American, French, Russian, Cuban... ) are all examples of
spontaneous cooperation of diverse persons (a people) in order to reach
a better social and intellectual condition. The dynamic process of
those revolutions lasts as long as the participation is spontaneous.
(a mot of your beloved sixties here was "Freedom is participation")
tks for reading
Marco.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:02 BST