Walkers: There is a saying in the legal profession that goes something
like this; Hard cases make bad laws. I think an analogous principle
applies to our efforts to distinguish between the social and
intellectual levels; Exceptional cases make bad general rules. I think
we should focus on the clearest examples first, clear up some basic
issues, and then we might be able to have fun with the really
complicated questions.
One thing that is bound to confuse us is that the top two levels are
both included in SOM's "subjectivity". (See Pirsig's SODV for the clear
and simple graph.) In other words, the social and intellectual levels
are both "mental". Its more difficult to see the line between those two
than it is to see the difference between biological and social because
the former is "material and tangible" while the latter is not some
"thing" we can put under a microscope. We can't see a language or a
social structure in the same way we can see a boulder or a bear. And
finally, I think we have to accept the basic order of the four static
levels as axiomatic, otherwise were not even talking about the same MOQ.
4. Intellectual level
3. Social level
2. Biological level
1. Inorganic level
Its the line between level 3 and 4 that concerns us, eh? I don't think
there is a sharp and distinct line. I don't think we can put everything
neatly into one or the other because, according to the MOQ, each level
also contains the ones below it. There are no packs without wolves just
as ther are no wolves without molecules. In the same way, there is no
intellect without a language and society to support it. Remember
Pirsig's correction of Descartes? "French society exists, therefore I
think, therefore I am." Bohr's saying that "We are suspended in
language" has the same meaning. He also locates the birth of intellect
in ancient Greece, which was at the end of tens of thousnds of years of
social and linguistic development. In these examples and in others, we
can see that Pirsig is quite convinced that social values have to come
prior to the intellect's birth. They are mother and child, so to speak.
But the intellect can not escape from the social level just like a pack
can not escape from its' canine organisms.
I heard a report on "large brained mammals" on NPR just this morning.
Its amazing how much we have in common with whales and primates. These
higher animals exhibit many of the cognitive functions that were once
thought to belong exclusively to humans; learning language and other
social skills, making and using tools, conducting war, the ability to
show affection, love and grief. Pirsig puts all this stuff on the social
level. Chimps can even recognize themselves in a fun-house mirror, which
demonstrates a pretty abstract sense of self. Chimp culture is pretty
basic compared to ours, but the social level has essentially the same
features. Like our closest cousins, we have language and have to adapt
our selves to a social heirarchy. We've built marriage and funeral
ceremonies around love and grief, but its not so different for monkeys.
But the main point here is that many of our cognitive functions are
essentially social. Our intellect requires it. Its like a pre-requisite.
Its part of our overall thought process. Alot of our social level values
reside in the unconscious mind or if they present to the
ego-consciousness they exist as un-examined assumptions. Its the stuff
everybody knows and hardly questions. What's the difference between a
Czar and the alpha male in a wolf pack? Not much.
I saw a video tape of a group of chimps that clearly showed all the
members ostrasizing one particularly greedy little chimp. As I watched
the greedy one take a huge portion of the food off into a corner for
herself, I actually felt a sense of outrage and expressed it to my wife,
who felt the same way. We recognized and responded to the same sense of
injustice that motivated the ostracizing chimps. Fair is fair and even
monkeys know it. But I think its a HUGE mistake to take these cognitive
functions as intellectual in the Pirsigian sense. Remember that the
social and intellecual levels are both "mental", but that doesn't mean
they are one and the same. Rocks and rodents are both "material", but
that doesn't mean they are one and the same. We recognize the social
values of chimps because we share that level in common with them. But
humans have an additional layer on top of the social level, but the
human never abandons the social skills. In fact, if they don't continue
to develop the kid will end up to be quite dysfunctional by the time he
hits puberty. It seems a human child can begin to go beyond the social
level at the age of 4 or 5. At that point a human child can out-think
even an exceptionally bright adult chimp. Me Tarzan, you Jane.
Obviously, comparisons to wildlife can only go so far. We don't just
have basic social structures, we've got priests and cops, politicians
and movie stars, mythologies and religions, and lots of other highly
evolved social institutions. They shape who and what we are, consciously
and unconsciously. Its our jungle. Its our enviroment. I guess there is
some sense in which we have participated in the evolution of society,
but I think its more accurately MOQ to think of it as something that has
invented us, rather than the other way around. People don't create
societies so much as societies create people. There's an African saying;
People create stories create people create stories. The irrational
circularity of it is quite intentional and to the point, don't you
think? The social level of values makes up the majority of our overall
consciousness. Intellect is just the tip of the ice-berg. I'd say about
90% of who and what we are lies below the level of conscious awareness
and intellect is only a part of the 10% that's visible, so to speak.
(The biological level of values express themselves in the depths of the
unconscious too, but that's another post.)
BEWARE OF OCCUPATIONS THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL CLOTHES. That was Oscar
Wilde's way of saying that anyone who wears a uniform is acting as a
social functionary. Cops, priests, soldiers and roles like that are
social. Legal scholars, Professors of comparative religions and
Historians are intellectual. The intelligence of the individuals who
take on these different roles is NOT the difference. The difference is
in the values they serve. See what I mean? The differences in those
kinds of people reveal a lot about the difference between the two
levels. A cop has different values than a legal scholar. Guess who the
intellectual is likely to side with. Priest and Professors are likely to
clash on their common interest. Guess which one is a social functionary.
Soldierts make bad historians and Historians make bad soldiers. We need
them both, but they not at all the same thing.
DEVOLUTION
The culture war is the war between social and intellectual values.
Fascism is the social level reacting against intellectual values.
Fundamentalism is the social level reacting against intellecual values.
EVOLUTION
Artistic creations are dynamic expressions of value.
Science and philosophy attempt to expand and/or improve intellectual
values.
Romantic movements are dynamically inspired attempts to improve or
transcend intellecual values.
I'm outta here. DMB
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST