Hi Marco:
> 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.
Your view doesn't square with Pirsig's. Not only does he say that the
levels are exhaustive but that they are discrete. "They have very little to
do with one another." Your "birth" metaphor suggests that what
originates at one level grows into a higher level and becomes
influential in the higher level. Maybe so, but I find nothing in the MOQ
that supports your view.
>M:
> 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.
I like your idea of considering the levels as resources, but I can think of
them that way without changing "belong" to have "birth." Birth and
resources don't match very well in a metaphorical sense.
>M:
> And this way we can reconcile Pirsig's fixation on the "clash between
> levels" with Rog's good points on the possible "cooperation".
I wonder who is fixated here. Recall Pirsig's observation: "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."
>M:
>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.
Yes. I think Pirsig would have no problem with a morality of enlightened
self interest.
> M:
>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.
You suggest that abstraction and self-awareness were not present in
the social level before the intellectual level rose to full prominence,
meaning I suppose that a pre-Greek individual like an Egyptian had no
language or sense of self. This I doubt. By all accounts, religion arose
with earliest man, with the cave dwellers. Further, if you look at today's
religious fundamentalists you won't find much intellect there.
Platt
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