Hi 3WDave, Wim, all
I find Wim's position about society and intellect very very close to
mine. Good! I also think that the Dave's problems with the social level
can be solved.
3WD
The more a worry it around the more uneasy I am with the whole social
level per se. First it doesn't correspond to most of the other
'perennial' philosophies old or new, most of which go inorganic,
biological, then go mind, or self- consciousness, or intellect or
something very similar.
Marco:
Pirsig's social level is somewhat new, I guess. I'm with Wim: the
social level should make it easier the explanation of the jump from
biology to mind.
3WD
Second many here have supported language written
or spoken as the step from biological to social but how does this occur
without the intellectual capacity to manipulate symbols. The argument
being intelligence and intellect are two different things. Which I agree
with but that still evades the issue.
Marco
Not language, but communication was, in my opinion, the beginning of
the social level. Living individuals of many species can learn by
imitating the others, where learning is expanding the DNA-embodied
skills. Socially, it becomes decisive that there is learning by
teaching. In short: culture.
3WD
Third many of the patterns of
value we call social in humans, are very similar to what we observe in
animals. ie specialization or divisions of labor within a species,
altruism, setting and defending boundaries, kinship bonds, mating for
life, family rearing of young etc. We can go on and on, but deciding to
draw the social boundary at humans not only seems pretty arbitrary it's
very difficult to do if you just look at values and disreguard species.
Marco
Here I agree. Pirsig says that "The social level is the sum total of
all cultural influences on the individual which no scientific
instrument can detect". Even if I'm not completely glad with this
definition, there are many cultural skills among other animals that no
scientific instrument can detect. The alpha-wolf in a wolfpack can't be
detected by instruments, just like the US president.
3WD
But the social level is useful, so I guess right now I would say that
social should not be exclusively human. Social values should be pushed
back in time and would require sufficient intellegence and memory to
recall and act based on some values other than hardwired biological
instinct. This might include most mammals. Then I would put intellect
emerging (first time it is ever evident) somewhere around or just before
cave art and the like. But of course this is does not jive with the MoQ.
But then again what does?
Marco
My definition of social level is "culture" that is "what is taught and
learned". Indeed it extends the social level to other species (as I wrot
e to Wim, 19 april 2002 in the "Mysticism and manners" thread ) but IMO
it does not undermine the MOQ at all.
Hope it helps. Let me know.
Ciao,
Marco
Marco
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST