Hey Rick,
How are you? Nicely said. I think we should be careful about interchanging
society, social patterns, and a social level. A question:
PIRSIG:" A social pattern which would be unaware of the next higher level
would be found among prehistoric people and the higher PRIMATES (emphasis
mine) when they exhibit social learning that is not genetically hard-wired but
yet is not symbolic."
I wasn't sure if I was reading this right but for a social pattern to become a
social level does it involve awarness of the next higher level.
So does that mean we can not have an intellectual level without awareness of a
higher level? Is that evidence there is a 5th level?
P.S. (sorry everybody about that scanner post) I meant to send that to my
advisor and then go reply to this post but accidently sent that message here.
Erin
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Hey all,
>I've been following this thread and so far, I think it's crystal clear that
>Pirsig believes that humans are the only species *has* achieved social
>patterning. But what I haven't seen yet is a quote that dispositively
>indicates whether he believes that humans are the only species that *can*
>achieve social patterning.
>
>PLATT (quoting RMP)
> My only point was Pirsig has answered those who want to expand the
>> social level to include cells, ants and dolphins and said, "No. That is
>> not what I mean by the social level in the MOQ."
>
>PIRSIG
>" In the MOQ all organisms are objective. The exist in the
>> material world. All societies are subjective. They exist in the mental
>> world. Again the distinction is very sharp.
>
>PIRSIG
> "This is why it is important not to extend the term "society" beyond the
>> dictionary definition: "a group of HUMAN BEINGS broadly distinguished
>> from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic
>> relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture."
>
>RICK
>This last quote is the closest thing to suggesting that MoQ society is
>exclusively human. But it's more a call for semantic clarity in the MOQ
>taxonomy rather than a metaphysical statement.
>
>It seems to me that all of the quotes that have been brought out on the
>topic so far can be read:
>(1) as statements of observed fact (ie. of all known species, for whatever
>reason, it seems only humans have societies) or
>(2) as statements of metaphysical necessity (ie. there is something about
>humans that make them, and them alone, uniquely capable of social patterning
>that no other species can ever achieve) or
>(3) as statements of mere definition (ie. Society = groups of humans. So
>even if an advanced race of space-dolphins land on Earth with technology
>greater than anything we can ever dream of... they still don't have
>societies because they're just not human). This one feels too much like a
>technicality for my tastes, so I'd like to believe that Pirsig has something
>else in mind.
>
>Can anybody point to anything conclusively indicates that humans, and ONLY
>humans (out of every other species in the word, and the universe [?] known
>or unknown) are capable of achieving societies???
>
>
>rick
>
>
>
>
>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
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 - 16:02:15 BST