From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 06:13:25 BST
Hey Johnny and all,
J
> So all you get from it is that they conflict? Do you not see how it can
> help define what the fourth level means and classify patterns? What does
> "built on society" mean, if not patterns that are between societies, or
> between social patterns?
R
I think "built on societies" is wrong, "built on social patterns" is better.
J
4th level
> patterns can't be formed of human individual biololgical patterns, or
they'd
> be third level too.
R
Not "individual biological patterns", it's "individual social patterns".
Remember, a whole "culture" is just one kind of social pattern. That
particular convergence of social roles that is grafted on to a given
individual also constitutes a social pattern.
> >R
> >Remember that in the MoQ the term "Society" (as in Social Patterns... the
> >3rd level), isn't defined as contra-individual, it's defined as
> >contra-biological. To Pirsig, the 3rd level includes both "collective"
> >social patterns and "individual" social patterns. So to Pirsig, it's not
> >so
> >much that intellectual patterns don't come out of "individuals", it's
that
> >they don't come out "biological patterns". A "human animal" entirely
> >dominated by biological patterns would follow his genetic programming to
> >find food; if dominated by social patterns, he'll just copy and repeat
the
> >behaviors of others in his society which help find food; if dominated by
> >social patterns that are dominated by intellectual patterns, he'll use
> >symbols that represent his experiences to find better, more efficient
ways
> >to find food.
J
> I agree with all that. What are the "individual social pattens" you refer
> to?
R
See above.
J
I see individual human animals as being the biological pattern, the
> pattern ends at our skin's edge.
R
I was trying to use the term "human animal" to indicate a purely biological
person, not dominated at all by social patterns or intellectual patterns.
The "individual social human" (for lack of a better term) is the pattern of
social identity a given human animal comes to support via his participation
in a "culture".
J
Social patterns are what eveolve when more
> than one biological pattern interact. The social patterns cause the
> biological patterns to behave according to the social pattern, or they
> should anyway. Intellectual patterns cause social patterns to behave
> according to the intellectual pattern - they don't have a direct effect on
> the human animal, they first filter through the social level.
R
Agreed.
> >R
> >Quality is the one. The undivided. And if Quality is the source (cause)
> >of
> >subjects and objects, then just as he says, it's not a *collision*
between
> >subject and object (it couldn't be), rather it's a *divergence* into
> >subject
> >and object.
J
> I like that.
R
Nice :-)
> And it's an event. Quality is the event at which subjects and
> >objects diverge from the whole to an extent sufficient to cause the
subject
> >to 'become aware' of objects. But Pirsig also tells us that
subject/object
> >is just one way that the whole might be carved up. So more generally, we
> >might say that Quality is the event at which the whole diverges into
> >patterns of awareness. We (the aware, the interpreters, the subjects)
are
> >created in that event simultaneously with the rest of the world (the
> >empirical, the interpreted, the objects). Neither comes first; nor is one
> >contained within, or created by, the other (tat tvam asi). Each
> >"individual
> >awareness" is just a different divergence, a different face of the whole.
J
> Yes, but each sees a different part of the whole.
R
I would agree with that too.
> >And so why does it do it? Why does the whole diverge and create these
rich
> >and complex patterns of awareness? My only guess is... for the sheer fun
> >of
> >it.
J
> Because it should, the same reason all the way down. The original reason,
> because it was expected to, it probably would. It is expectation itself,
> and the being what is expected.
R
Well, as usual, this is where we're going to part ways. To me, it seems
incoherent to say that the undivided whole was "expected" to do anything
(who or what would have held such an expectation?). It think it does it for
the fun of it... because it's better than not doing it.
J
> I don't think Quality is undifferentiated before the quality event, I
agree
> that the patterns of subject and object don't exist in real solidity until
> then, but I think the specific way that quality is differentiated in
> successive quality events is too continuous for there to be no memory
> between events.
R
Well naturally, you would have to think that Quality is to some extent
differentiated because if it wasn't then there couldn't be anything that
could have an expectation of something else. But just as naturally, I
disagree. In my mind, it must all start with an undivided whole.
J
That's why I think morality is a much better word to use
> than quality, because people think of morality as containing enduring
> morals, but quality just seems like a shining sun of pure light.
R
Disagree. Only static quality has "enduring morals". In fact, "enduring
morals" sounds like it could be the definition of static quality. Just
another shot fired in your war to subsume the Dynamic to the static I
suppose.
J
The
> patterns of morality exist as patterns before the event makes them real.
R
How can something exist before it's "made real"?
take care
rick
The dream was always running ahead of me. To catch up, to live for a moment
in unison with it, that was the miracle. - Anais Nin
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 Jul 21 2003 - 06:11:45 BST