Hey erin,
>(erin:)
>There are some animals that I do consider a possiblity for having
>social values (dolphins) but no I do not consider ants having social
> >value. As for the idea of hardwired how does it violate MOQ.
>
>PIRSIG Annotation #44:
>A social pattern which is aware of the next higher level would be
>among prehistoric people and higher primates when they exhibit social
>learning that is not genetically hardwired but is not yet symbolic.
Elliot:
"Genetically (or neurologically)
hardwired" is ok if it is understood that what is meant is a perception and
reaction to Quality on a biological level, a reaction to Biological Quality.
ERIN: That is how I meant it.
ELLIOT:However, does this rule out a social
level that is NOT aware of the intellect which has biochemical ways of
imparting information (hardwired so to say, but not symbolic)?
ERIN: Yes I think there are many species that are peaking their
head so to speak into the social but until it is latched I don't
grant them the social level.
ELLIOT: The ants
themselves distinguish between ant societies, again, based on genetic
relationship. Sticktly biological behavior says (to me anyway) fend off all
that threaten self, and treat all of the same biology equally. amebas dont
pick fights with certain other amebas and then co-operate with others.
ERIN: Okay I think it here is the major difference in viewpoints.
If it is genetic it is hardwired and it is biological (to me).
ELLIOT: But, we get to a point where you have your idea and i mine. Im sure
you see my point and you think it of lower Quality than yours, i see yours and
think that. thats a personal thing and im not trying to convert anyone. I'd
be
glad to clarify if you dont see my side, but id just be saying the same
things over and over unless you have a unique question i can address.
ERIN: I think we have exhausted the ant debate.
But to me the clear distinction from the biological level to
the social level is one from objective to subjective.
I personally don't see anything subjective in ants.
To me self is subjective and appears at the social level.
The "selfish" and "unselfish" behavior described by you just seems
like intellectual/social mediation of the biological level.
I think ants are amazing buggers. I think my computer is amazing
even with bugs. But I don't grant either the social level.
I think that you are trying to argue for different model then
what MOQ proposes and that is fine but Pirsig gives clear distinctions
between the levels. I can't really tell where you divide the
levels or if you even think there should be a clear division.
There is a continuous development within each level but going from
one level to the next seems like a stage-like jump.
I personally don't think ants have made that jump. but you are
right i don't think we are unclear about each other's ideas we
just disagree with them. So we can end the ant debate.
Cheers,
Erin
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 - 16:02:19 BST