From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 02:36:02 BST
Hey Johnny and all,
> >R
> >I think "built on societies" is wrong, "built on social patterns" is
> >better.
J
> OK, but I wasn't sure if some things built on social patterns would be
other
> social patterns.
R
I don't see why not (more on this below).
J
I like built on societies, because perhaps intellectual
> patterns didn't develop until one society came into contact with another.
> Or until people became aware that their society wasn't the only society
> possible, there were other societies and why can't this one be different.
R
Why do you think that? I thought we agreed that intellectual patterns
developed to help a society find food and such. Why would it matter if they
had come into contact with another society or not?
> >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.
J
> Oh I see what you mean. But those social roles, though they hang on
> individuals, certainly aren't individual, lots of people share them, they
> are defined by the person's relation to other people. I think the
patterns
> that evolve between social roles are also social patterns, kind of like
the
> relationship between foxes and chickens is still biological.
R
I agree (in fact, I think that's what I wrote). It's just a different way
of looking at the social patterns. You can see them in terms of their sum
(the culture, the giant, etc) or you can see them in terms of how they
specifically apply to given people or institutions. When the theory of
relativity was born it wasn't "German culture" as whole that came up with
it, it was that particular part of German culture called "Albert Einstein".
> > > >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.
J
> I'm not sure why "contra" is your choice of word. Each level is the
> relationship of units of the lower level. They manipulate the lower level
> units (societies, people, chemicals) for their own survival, but aren't
> necessarily in conflict with it\\the lower level, which "contra" implies.
R
I was using "contra" to refer to the way in which Pirsig defines the
contours of the levels (not their relationship). "Social" in the MoQ is
defined in contrast to it's relationship to biological patterns (ie. social
means "not biological", not "not individual").
J
> How about the sentence I left out inadvertently: Intellectual patterns are
> what evolve when more than one society interact?
R
As I said above, I'm not sure why two societies would have to interact for
intellectual patterns to evolve if they evolve for the purpose of helping a
society find food.
J
I'm suddenly afraid I
> can't figure out how it works at the biological level: Biological patterns
> are what evolve when more than one inorganic unit interact? But those
would
> usually be also inorganic patterns, just more complex.
R
Inorganic patterns interact with each other at various scales to form all
sorts of inorganic patterns, some more complex than others. One of those is
"carbon". Biological patterns are what form when units of carbon are
configured by DNA.
J
...I guess this is the defintion of life which has stumped
> people for a long time. So perhaps the "about" defintion I kept repeating
> makes sense at this level? If a pattern is *about* inorganic patterns, it
> is a biological pattern? It gives it some level of purpose. Life, or
> biology, is trying to manipulate inorganic patterns, it is about inorganic
> patterns.
R
I don't know, sounds confusing to me. I'm sticking with 'life' is carbon
being configured by DNA.
> >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 disagree. Wouldn't you expect something to do womething that was
> better and more fun?
R
Well, yes. But I don't think it does it BECAUSE it's expected of it. Saying
that something does something fun *because* that's what's expected of it
seems to rob "fun" of all the fun. Fun is something we enjoy for it's own
sake, not because we're expected to.
J
It is a simultaneous meaning: morality does what is
> expected because it is better to do what is expected and that's why it is
> expected that it will do it.
R
Ah yes, your familiar refrain. I still don't find it valuable.
J
The undivided whole is Morality, correct?
R
Yes. That is what Pirsig says.
J
I translate that to expectation itself.
R
I don't. I translate it to Quality=Morality. Which means that "static
quality" and "Dynamic quality" are just as well called "static morality" and
"Dynamic morality". "Expectation" I would say is a creature of static
morality only. It is not synonymous with Morality itself.
J
THe good, the fun and the
> satisfaction that comes from realizing expectation is why expectation
comes
> true. Without the fun, there'd be no expectation. WIthout the
expectation,
> there'd be no fun.
R
Disagree completely. Fulfilling expectations is not always fun and the most
fun things are usually unexpected (this is basically the subject of the
'beauty' thread, no?).
> In my mind, it must all start with an undivided whole.
J
> It did, back in the beginning. But it's been differentiated now. There's
a
> Europe that endures, and oceans, and crustaceans, and me and you. Yet
there
> are still quality events that create all this stuff afresh each time.
R
To it's the whole of everything IS a part. Not a whole of which everything
WAS a part.
> >R
> >How can something exist before it's "made real"?
J
> The patterns dictate what is made real, they are what carry forward.
... THe patterns exist within that whole, and they exist as
> patterns, ready to be made real if anyone were to look.
... To get from one
> moment to the next, the PATTERN continues to exist within morality.
R
I don't Johnny. Sounds alot like SOM to me.
enough for tonight
take care
rick
If I were required to guess off-hand, and without collusion with higher
minds, what is the bottom cause of the amazing material and intellectual
advancement of the last fifty years, I should guess that it was the
modern-born and previously non-existent disposition on the part of men to
believe that a new idea can have value. - Mark Twain
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 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 02:37:34 BST