Hi David. This post is a great example of why I wrote my essays! Much of
the questions you are asking is because you seem to think that Reality can
be chopped up and made static. I believe that Reality is not separate parts
and separate whole units but Holons! Simultaneously parts and wholes. The
Universe is an never ending Dynamic continuum. We humans separate it to
understand it, and make it so very static. Everything is occurring at many
levels all at the same time!
> 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 derived 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's response: Ahhhhhh. Blessed wonderment. You are on the verge of
Buddha like experience. You are on the verge of enlightenment! The nature
of the Tao is that nothing is ONLY an individual separate from the rest of
the universe. Everything is interconnected! Everything is both
"simultaneously part of a larger collective system and an individual
entity"!!! You have just stumbled unto the realization that we need a new
word : Holon!!!! The word was the invention of Arthur Koestler back in his
book "The Ghost in the Machine". Ken Wilber in his books "A Brief History
of Everything" and "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" use Koestler to build off
of. Once you realize what you said and accept it as true, you will see the
world in a whole new light! Which is why you will be Enlightened! You may
even be blessed with a mystic vision! Read my essay I beg you. Everything
is a Holon a thing which is both a part a some collective and a whole
containing a collection of parts. All Holons have the following qualities:
Internalness--externalness, Individuality--Communal, & Static--Dynamic.
Read Koestler! Read Wilber, Please. Seek Enlightenment.
> 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' environment. 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 everything 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 environment that
> creates the laws of nature. And as we move up in the higher levels, the
> possibilities of greater variety in those responses increase. See?
>
Gary again: Absolutely! I completely agree with you. Everything responds
to its environment in ways that are appropriate to its level. Everything
has an interior and an exterior. Each level is not really separate but
continuous! We humans use words which separate out the Dynamic Reality and
make it static so we can talk about it. But that does not mean that Reality
just sits there all static and unconnected and only on one level at a time.
Our words are not the thing! That is the Truth that Lao Tsu told us in the
very first line of the "Tao te Ching" Pirsig even quotes Lao Tsu in chapter
20 page 253 of the Quill edition. [I had a horrible thought, perhaps you
never read 'The Tao Te Ching'? Perhaps you never studied Taoism?]
"Then on impulse, Phaedrus went over to his bookshelf...it was the
2,400-year-old Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu. He began to read through the lines
he had read many times before, but this time he studied it to see if a
certain substitution would work. He began to read and interpret it at the
same time. He read; 'The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute
Quality. That was what he said. The names that can be given it are not
Absolute names.' "
The Absolute Quality and Absolute names are the underlying Reality before
human words are applied.
Sincerely hoping you will read and reach enlightenment,
Gary
But as Pirsig defines the MOQ only humans can be described on the 3rd level
and 4th level. That is the difference. I have given an example to you in
another post it is in the form of a parable: David reads a newspaper while
Gary observes him". Here I hope I clarify what I mean by 3rd and 4th
levels. You must, must read my essays.
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