To: Bard (with PPS to Enoonan)
THE BARD:
While I have agreed with most of what you have written in this thread, I fear
that you have fallen into an intellectual trap with this one, as has Pirsig,
as I have in the past, as all of us have at one time or another. We tend as
"civilized humans" to confuse primitive "history" with man's nature. This is
tantamount to future generations judging our nature by viewing videotapes of
our evening news. We see the results of prior generation's destructiveness,
greed, persecution, barbarianism because destruction always leaves artifacts.
But I would argue that we should not judge our ancestor's nature, ergo our
own, by the small percentage of humans who engaged in cannibalism and torture
when the majority most probably, given the success of our species, lived in
peace and harmony, leaving more subtle historical tracks. "Zen" is the first
word in the title of Pirsig's first book. Let's not forget that the Zen
approach is that an object (e.g. historical artifact) is defined only by the
space (e.g. lack of historical artifacts) that surrounds it.
ROG:
Good point on artifacts and not judging past (or current) trends on biased
history or on the evening news. Unfortunately though, there is extensive
research showing that our distant ancestors knew little about harmony.
Studying animals shows that most complex mammal interactions (excluding
sexual) either establish status hierarchies of dominance, or they avoid each
other all together. Biology has a difficult time generating cooperation. It
can develop within closely related families (usually small packs of very
close relatives) and can spread somewhat from there between very intelligent
animals (vampire bats, dolphins, chimps) that remain in very close contact
with each other and that can "police" each other (ie only cooperate with
fellow cooperators).
Studies of our nearest relatives -- chimps and bonobos -- is frightening.
Not only do males routinely fight for dominance and control of breeding, but
rival troops will go to war and will exterminate each other. Studies of
prehistoric man reveal that murder was the major cause of death in males,
with some estimates as high as 25% of males dieing in fights.
I am sorry, your argument sounds great, but it contradicts all evidence.
Social patterns and modern man have progressed together to higher and higher
levels of cooperation. Humans have developed or evolved an innate moral
sense, but our moral sense for fairness, sympathy, duty and self control can
be offset by our sense of greed, distrust, sneakiness and outrage. We are
complex beings, not all good and not all bad, but in general the co-evolution
of man and society has been from brute savagery toward harmony (with lots of
stumbles on the way).
Pirsig may have overstated his case a bit, but it wasn't by much.
Rog,
PS -- Despite revisionist historians, ancient people weren't all that
spectacular at living in harmony with nature either. This natural harmony
topic is not a secondary issue either. To understand the role of society
upon nature, one must have a realistic view of man's nature. I recommend The
Moral Sense by J. Wilson for a balanced and empirical explanation.
PPS -- The Span and Depth phrase comes from Wilber via John. See Wilber's
*Brief History of Everything*
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:46 BST