Platt, Bo, all
Platt:
> I think Marco has it right by including emotions
> in the intellectual level but "refined" from the
> biological level (into love, compassion, etc.)
> where they first emerged as a static latch of DQ.
M:
Thanks Platt. My intention was not to show that this or that pattern "belongs" to one level, rather that the best we can do is to find out where do patterns have their birth. When I read, as usual, "Emotion are biological" ... "No, they are the very social expression" ... "Hey, but they play an important role in our intellectual activity", I just answer: "Well, all these three statements are -or at least can be- true".
Just like when I look at a Michelangelo's statue... well, I can't see it merely as an inorganic marble stone. Patterns can be used, improved and refined, and finally enclosed into the upper levels. I know that Pirsig puts it more likely as if patterns "belong to" a level, but IMO by dropping "belong" and replacing it with "have birth" we can better explain why (according to Pirsig himself) an upper pattern should not *kill* the lower patterns. It is in fact much much better to consider them a great possible resource.
And this way we can reconcile Pirsig's fixation on the "clash between the levels" with Rog's good points on the possible "cooperation". An example: using the flow of a river for electricity production is not merely a clash between the river freedom and my (superior) technology. And as well it is not completely right to say it is a cooperation. The river is blind to my need for electric power, and I have to fight its natural tendency building dams and dykes. Of course, when I consider the river a resource and not a problem, I also save its existence 'cause it is my advatage to make it flow forever.
Platt:
> I think Marco has it right except for religion which belongs
> at the social, not intellectual level, and art which belongs
> at a yet higher level.
Bo:
> I agree about religion ....and ART naturally!!!
M:
Firstly, I repeat I reject the term "belong to" and replace it with "have birth at". Then, even if it was not my main intention to classify this or that (and my list is all but complete), I have to admit that I've been initially dubious just about religion and art. So, why do I state that religion has birth at the intellectual level? Because IMHO it is not possible at all to Believe without abstraction and without self-awareness.
Of course, religion has been widely used to lead society, to guide people more as sheep than individuals. But this is true also for the example of the river above. Technology can be widely used to lead inorganic patterns; religion has been widely used to lead social patterns. This way I think I surpass (my) problem of the "purpose" so many times I've been involved into.
About ART... well. We already have discussed it many times. It is my impression that art is the higher intellectual pattern. But not still a new level....
Platt:
> As for emotions, I'll stick with Pirsig's view that they are
> biological level phenomena, the two most critical being the urge to
> survive and reproduce, found in the lowliest virus and the basic
> engine of evolution to higher levels. Human emotions, as Marco
> suggests, are refinements of these
Bo:
As with Gavin, this is my position too ... only that these urges
aren't emotions until refined to social purity. Somehow we have
been talking past each other it seems.
M:
Well, I'm not sure that "aren't emotions until refined to social purity"... IMO society is widely about leading biological emotions for its advantage (again like in the example of the river).
thanks for reading,
Marco
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 - 16:01:47 BST