Bo, all
Bo commented,
> I haven't yet got the annotated "Lila
> Child" yet (ordered by snail mail) and was a little taken aback when I
> learned that Pirsig thus directly had criticise my utterings on this point,
3WD
When Dan sent me an early copy of Pirsig's comments I too was taken
aback at Pirsig's interpretation of "social" as being strictly limited
to human relationships. ie standard dictionary definition: 1. of or
having to do with human beings living together as a group....
While this directly correlates to his SO split, as diagramed in the SODV
paper, this limitation is in part why I have been leary of this split.
My concern was and is basically twofold.
First, if we move on to the dictionary definition of "society", "2.
pl-|ties -the trait or tendency in individuals to join together in
groups and associate with one another...", it is readily evident that
this seems not to be exclusively a human activity. Though just how
non-human's experience these "societies" is open to wide ranging and
inconclusive conjectures by humans.
But second, and more critically, in an evolutionary system where a
patterns of value are supposedly evolving toward higher levels, this
limit, metaphysically locks the system to any furture migration into the
upper two levels of any values other than human ones. I just don't see
how anyone can accept, even skeptically, the evolutionary suggestion
that man, and everything else, evolved from some common "star dust" and
then suggest that man and only man can be or will be ever capable of
accessing the higher social or intellectural levels. I suspect a little
Judeo Christian bias here.
3WD
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 - 16:02:10 BST