From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 17:51:28 BST
Hi Platt,
I think your position makes some sense out of the tensions in the standard account, but doesn't it
erode the 'discrete' nature of levels 3 and 4?
Sam
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: MD The Transformation of Love
> Hi Sam,
>
> Platt
> > > I follow Pirsig's line that the social level applies only to humans, not
> > > animals. I also follow his line that intellectual patterns were present
> > > at the beginning of the social level and in fact were necessary for the
> > > social level to survive. So I agree that the social level first separated
> > > us from the animals. Symbol-making is the Rosetta stone for identifying
> > > humans and the primary requirement for the emergence of levels three and
> > > four.
>
> > and
> > > Humanity without intellect is a bunch of monkeys. The ability to collect
> > > and manipulate symbols that stand for patterns of experience (Pirsig's
> > > definition of intellect) distinguishs man from ape, plus a few genes.
>
> > Is it your view, then, that levels 3 and 4 evolved simultaneously (ie as
> > soon as there was subjective awareness, or whatever it is that Pirsig uses
> > to describe the difference between levels 1/2 and levels 3/4)?
>
> Yes. Without mind there is no society as Pirsig defines society and mind.
>
> > So there was
> > never a significant period of time when there were only level 3 values?
>
> Right. The distinction is a matter of dominance. The social level was
> dominated by mythical thinking (as it still is in parts of the world
> today.) The intellectual level is dominated by rational thinking which, in
> turn, is dominated by the S/O intellectual pattern which dismisses values
> as irrational. The MoQ, by contrast, posits values as objective fact . . .
> the primary fact of experience to be precise, prior to all divisions that
> symbol-dependent intellect requires.
>
> If you agree that a human society requires a culture to exist, i.e., a
> common language and world outlook, then the following quote from Pirsig
> backs my view that society and intellect arose simultaneously.
>
> "For precision I think I would say that a culture contains social and
> intellectual values, but not biological or inorganic." Note 28, Lila's
> Child
>
> If you add the following and I think the evidence is clear:
>
> "The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an
> ultimate meaning of the universe. That Is a relatively recent fad. Its
> historical purpose has been to help a society find food, detect danger,
> and defeat enemies." (24)
>
> All necessary for the social level to become viable.
>
> But, I could be wrong.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 18:17:24 BST