Gary's Response: "The scientific method, for example, requires a community,
peer review and such." I agree. Everything listed in that sentence is at
the Social/community level. I find the simplest way to distinguish between
the two levels is individual and communal. This seems to be what Pirsig is
getting at when he choose the word 'Social' . The dictionary definition of
Social is something like= living in communities. From all that I read in
Lila and in Lila's Child, which I am only just beginning on a first read, it
seems that Pirsig always means human community when he refers to 'Social'.
DMB says:
Actually Pirsig's use of the words "social" and "quality" are good examples
of "language-derived" symbols. That is to say they go beyond the standard
dictionary definitions and thereby go beyond 3rd level language. His use of
these word is dervied from normal language, but goes further and has a more
specific and specialized meaning. He raises them to the intellectual level,
but without contradicting the dictionary.
Gary said:
If you use this system: INTELECTUAL = INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT PROCESSES &
SOCIAL = COMMUNIAL ACTIVITIES OF HUMANS , then everything seems to fall
into place.
Pirsig is very adamant that both Intellectual and Social are the realms of
Humans and not animals. I have a tendency to want to make those terms
servable on a wider scale and use them as ways to refer to any Internal
process of all things as Level 4 and any interaction process on any things
as Social. But that hypothesis is for my 4th essay.
DMB says:
I think your hypothesis holds no water. I would challenge you to think of
anything in the universe that is not BOTH and individual entity AND
simultaneously part of a larger collective system. Everything is both. Such
is the nature of all manifested reality, so the distinction between
individual and communal does not help at all and only causes confusion.
Gary said:
My challenge and a way to test my current hypothesis: try to find an
instance where you can't apply me definition of Intellectual and Social to
the Pirsig's presentation in Lila. If you succeed than you will have
demonstrated my error. If you can't then my hypothesis moves to a theory,
or a working definition.
DMB says:
Every thing at every level serves as an example and an instance where your
definition CAN'T be applied. For example, one of the Pirsigisms from Lila's
Child, one posted not too long ago, has the author saying that even
inorganic molecules or atoms can respond to its' enviroment. He goes out of
his way to point out that they can't respond in an organic, social or
intellectual way, but that they have an inorganic interior. How did he put
it? Anyone have that quote handy? This same idea, that every thing has an
exterior and interior aspect, applies to everythig at every level. It seems
like matter is only following the laws of nature, but in Pirsig's view it is
only a very, very consistent way of responding to the enviroment that
creates the laws of nature. And as we move up in the the higher levels, the
possibilities of greater variety in those responses increase. See?
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 - 16:02:18 BST