On 8 May 2002 at 11:01, 3dwavedave wrote:
> Bo
> You asked:
> > Says Wavedave, but I wonder ...if in the future some contact with
> > extra-terrestials (tongue in cheek) should be made, would it be
> > impossible that they have reached the social and intellectual
> > stages?
> Under the MoQ, as Pirsig currently concieves it? Yes, impossible.
> Based on the way he has related subjects and objects to the MoQ levels
> all values above biological are exclusively human. The following are
> some of his comments in Dan's Lila's Child that bear on this issue.
Dear Wavedave
Before going on let me just say that your recent messages - this one
included - have pleased and impressed me greatly and I hereby
withdraw all accusations of you being ....just kidding as DMB says.
> When you on page 8 used the phrase "society of atoms" he commented:
As said I ordered the CD "Lila Child" by snail-mail - and for some
strange reason I did not ask Dan for a quick digital one - and haven't yet
read the Pirsig annotations, but was that me with "society of atoms"?
THAT interpretation of society I have never meant to peddle, it sound
more like Magnus, but OK, if you say so ....
> "This is a stretch that seems to destroy the meaning of the word
> "society" one could say "an atom is a society of electrons and
> protons" but that weakens the meaning of the word without gaining
> anything."
Anyway I fully agree with Pirsig.
> And when you say, " No one can tell where matter ends and life begins,
> or where an organism ends and a society starts"
This however, I admit to having said. It was was way, way back when I
wanted to demonstrate (my vision of) the static system as continents
with borderlines between them where the dynamic "magma" beneath
protruded (and no-one could tell what was what). If it is valid ?? but that
was the context ...then.
> He comments, " 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. For example, the
> "President of the U.S." is a social pattern. No objective scientific
> instrument can distinguish the President of the U.S. from anyone
> else."
> Then on page 18 when Magnus discussing sheep and herds asks "So what
> level does the sheep belong to to?"
> He responds;
> "Using the MOQ description of biology as objective and society as
> subjective, it is clear that sheep are biological. A herd of sheep is
> also biological."
> In the same post on the next page Magnus suggests that a team of
> robots are a social pattern, Pirsig responds,
> "This assumption destroys the system of classification set up by the
> MOQ. Social patterns are subjective. Robots are not."
Yes, I remember this discussion, interesting, but too big an issue (AI) to
start commenting on now.
> Now hold on because the next one will twist your head around. On page
> 23 Diana is trying to tackle "art". "What Pirsig doesn't say ... is
> which static pattern the arts fall into. The arts maybe about Dynamic
> Quality but they are not themselves Dynamic Quality. The instant you
> put oil on canvas or strike a chord its static. If we're to fit them
> into one of the four levels, I think the most likely candidate is
> social quality...."
> Pirsig responds, "This is interesting. I hadn't though of it but it
> sounds right. It fits with evolution since singing and dancing and
> painting can be considered prehistoric arts that occured before
> intellect."
Wish I remember what I have said on this issue through my career
here, but my bio-cache is "out of memory" :-)
> Now we are right back to my "chair" ,"human artifact" interpretation
> that you took issue with. Let's put it in another context. You are an
> painter, an artist, you do a watercolor. We both agree, that all the
> materials (paints, paper, water etc) you use are either inorganic or
> organic patterns of value, (objects) yet when you're done this "art"
> this "art-i-fact" Pirsig concedes has, or is, or rises to, a social
> pattern of value. We have a painting, an "object" which is clearly
> neither "human" or "mental" in a common meaning of the words, but
> somehow it is, or has, or rises to a "subjective","mental", social
> pattern of value. Is that social value inherent in, or integral to the
> painting? Or not?
In the famous "throne" thread, my take was that to each level
EVERYTHING is own value - god or bad. It is hopeless to start sifting
things and phenomena in a "what goes where" fashion. REALITY is the
four levels aggregate and when focus is at the social plane, my painting
(was it mine?) is as valuable as my status, when intellect is in focus it is
tried analyzed by objective criteria. When focus is biological it is not
recognized at all (except - as in my extreme example - as material for a
fire to stay alive). What inorganic focus is ...??
> And yet , just a few lines later on page 23 when Magnus says, "I don't
> think there's any difference between what we usual call a society, and
> society of cells."
> Pirsig reinterates, " In Lila there is a difference although I
> neglected to state it. Cell are objective. Societies are subjective.
> No objective scientific instrument can detect a society."
> When Diana challenges Magnus on his take on "society" saying, "
> However, if we consider a cell to be social value that how far back do
> we take it? Everything is a society of something else right back to
> atoms, No? If this is the case then why should the intellectual level
> emerge from the social value of the body? Why not from the social
> value of the atom? Or as I suggested, from the social value of the
> community?"
Oh yes, that was Magnus and Diana.
> Pirsig then drops the hammer,
> "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." [MY EMPHASIS]
I believe Pirsig's words don't exclude other "biological organisms" (even
extraterrestials should that come to pass), the thing is that the social
level is brought to a degree (of sophistication) that can carry intellectual
value. What organism it is that carries society ...or what element(s) that
carries biology is insignificant. On earth it has come to mean carbon,
humankind and consequently human society, no-one will deny that.
> Because the commonsense interpretation of "aliens" means "not human"
> or "of other groups" and "societies" are exclusively "a group of human
> beings" aliens cannot have evolved social, and thus intellectural
> values under the MOQ. Which is in part my objection to Pirsig's
> relation of "objective" and "subjective" to the MOQ. Surely ET has
> these values ! He's just too cute not to have them, Right?
Right!
> To twist Pirsig's own words, in my opinion, "[his stated relationship
> between S/O and the MOQ] weakens the meaning of the [system} without
> gaining anything."
> That is why I feel even though Wilbur's "internal/ external" take may
> have problems it still has less of them than Pirsig's.
As said many times the traditional way that the MOQ subsumes SOM
(inorg.+ bio.=subjects/socio.+ intell =objects) was the reason for my
SOLAQI, but how Wilber is an alternative is beyond me. Could you
expand on that ...again if I have missed it.
But thanks again Dave, you have done a great job here.
Bo
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