Hi all,
Erin's question (which i accidentally deleted before writting this) raises
the point that Pirsigs definition of Social makes the MoQ complecated.
because truth is a species of good, or Quality, i think that the "truest"
MoQ would be the most eleoquent while remaining true to observation. I'll
bring back my example of ants.
Ants are capable of communicating information after birth, therefore the
information isnt instinctual but stems from interaction. but the
information is also not symbolic. The ability to process symbols would be
intellectual, correct? and the ability to share information and thus have
complex systems of animals completeing smaller tasks in an overall social
goal is socail, correct? Pirsig says no the the second one, i cant imagine
why. Excluding everything many scientist would consider a social
arangement except humans seems odd. And having both a social level and an
intellectual level that both refer to exactly the same group seems
pointless. And as to erin's question about exsistance of intelligence
showing a 5th level, in my understanding, first the intellectual level
would have to be dominant over the social. second, the intellectual would
have to be on top for a very long time inorder to get comfortable enough
and begin to evolve tools for its own use that could spawn another level.
Also, as i see it and if the MoQ evolution can predict how things will
evolve and if they follow the same pattern, then several 5th level
manifestations would exsist in every human being (or whatever we've become
at that point). One biological group, humanity (or primates), is many
socities, which is billions of individuals which would be trillions of 5th
level entities were they in exsistance or if we knew what they were.
But the MoQ is not reality and making predictions about fifth level entites
while the social level is still dominating the intellect is premature,
maybe if we witnessed the over take of the social which would be a dramatic
change (consider the biological changes in animals such as ants that
developed for the purposes of society, how would society change for the
benefit of intellect?), then we might be able to postulate some things
about how level evolution works exactly.
Also, i think i define intellect as something different than others here.
Is intellect not exsistance of the concept of self and the ability to latch
dynamic experiences into static thoughts which are based on social
mediations such as language. Is not intellect anything with a memory that
can store strings of words (social, and therefore all the biological,
inorganic and chaotic patterns that come before it) and understand them?
Cause i suggested Pirsig said this and someone told me they'd eat their
book if that were true. Well? whats your idea of the intellect then? (i
hope it isnt some elitist philosopher king notion)
shortly i'll be posting an essay about the domination of the intellect by
society along the lines of Frankfurt school social theory and One
Dimensional society which explians pretty much what i think the social and
intellect levels are. Its horribly utopian, hope that doesnt throw anyone
off.
"demand the impossible" Paris '68 graffiti
Elliot
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