From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 20:05:57 BST
Hey Paul,
> > Here we can see that Pirsig was not saying "Static
> > patterns can't perceive
> > or adjust to DQ". Rather, he was saying that social
> > and intellectual
> > patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to
> > DQ (which is why he
> > thinks society should preserve as many living beings
> > as possible).
> > Why is
> > this? Because after the rise of the biological
> > level, *life* became the
> > primary vehicle for DQ.
PAUL
> Life meaning biological life? Aren't we like two red
> blood cells talking about whether or not there is a
> higher form of evolution than ourselves?
> I think I see your point though, killing 'individuals'
> attacks the 'biological level', specifically
> 'biological man' upon which the next two levels are
> sequentially built. If you succeed in killing
> 'biological man' (i.e. the entire human race)
> completely the levels disappear. It would be like the
> human race destroying 'carbon'. Less dramatically,
> killing any of 'biological man' undermines the future
> of the levels to a degree. Is that your point?
RICK
Yup. That sounds exactly like what I was getting at.
> > In chapter 11, Pirsig states, "The chemistry of life
> > is the chemistry of
> > carbon. What distinguishes all the species of
> > plants and animals is, in the
> > final analysis, differences in the way carbon atoms
> > choose to bond."
> > Carrying this up to the next level, I think Pirsig
> > might say something like:
> > "The chemistry of society is the chemistry of living
> > beings. What
> > distinguishes all the species of societies and
> > groups is, in the final
> > analysis, differences in the way living beings
> > choose to bond."
PAUL
> This could be a crux issue in this debate. In the MoQ,
> if we are indeed 'choosing to bond' in particular
> ways, it is not necessarily for our own benefit. It is
> for the benefit of evolution itself, for the
> development of a higher order of 'life'. You see, I
> don't think that from the MoQ it follows that the
> individual human being, or at least the common notion
> of one, is the pinnacle of evolution.
RICK
I think you're right. I don't think Pirsig's vision of the MoQ sees humans
as the pinnacle of evolution (which is why he justifies human rights on the
basis of the protection of more highly evolved 'ideas'.) To Pirsig, the
human being is just another link the evolutionary chain. Sam's recent
'Eudiamonic MoQ' essay presents a conception of the MoQ which does make
human individuals the crowning acheivement of evolution.
> > The way
> > Dynamic adjustment at the biological level
> > ultimately comes down to the
> > choices of carbon, Dynamic adjustment at the social
> > level (and the
> > intellectual level it supports) ultimately come down
> > to the choices of
> > living beings.
PAUL
> The word 'choices' has connotations which may be
> inappropriate here. Are the 'choices' we make the
> 'choices' which a carbon atom makes? Clearly we don't
> know, but either way I think they are made without
> full awareness of the context in which they are being
> made. Heavy stuff.
RICK
Very heavy indeed. But I think that Pirsig would say that ultimately both
choices do come down to a common factor "preference" (or value). The carbon
atom chooses to bond in certain ways because it values those bonds more than
others. Humans do something very similar at the social level.
PAUL
> Pirsig:'"Mankind" has never been interested in getting
> itself killed. But the superorganism, the Giant, who
> is a pattern of values superimposed on top of
> biological human bodies, doesn't mind losing a few
> bodies to protect his greater interests' Ch 17
>
> Superorganism - there is a real MoQ concept! There is
> something that has never been taken seriously in SOM
> but is as real as a brick to the MoQ. In this
> superorganism, a social pattern of value, biological
> human beings must be considered as like carbon atoms
> to a living being.
>
> And the intellectual level? If you follow this through
> then the intellectual level treats superorganisms as
> superorganisms treat human bodies. It starts off
> supporting it, practical science, technology but then
> goes off on its own purposes, metaphysics, maybe
> immortality as in freedom from matter and organic
> dependence, A.I., cybernetics etc??? I don't know....
RICK
Sounds like you've got the right idea to me.
> > So to put your 3 quotes together, we can see... Lila
> > is a living being
> > composed entirely of static patterns of value
> > evolving towards DQ, which she
> > perceives and adjusts to at 4 levels by virtue of
> > the fact that she is a
> > living being (ultimately made from Carbon).
PAUL
> Lila is a living being..... by virtue of the fact that
> she is a living being.
RICK
No. Lila is a living being. She is able to adjust to DQ at the higher
levels by virtue of the fact that she is a living being. If Lila was a
rock, she couldn't perceive or adjust to 3rd or 4th level values.
take care
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat May 03 2003 - 20:06:15 BST