Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:25:42 +0100
Magnus wrote:
> > >> If you really mean this, we're really starting to understand each
other.
> > >> A human with a warm coat and a good pair of shoes is a society (a
> > >> composition of organic patterns) that can better withstand cold
> > >> weather than a human without them. Therefore, the coat and the
> > >> shoes (and the human) are organic patterns to that society.
Magnus has always insisted that the social level can be applied to any
group of elements. The statement above is the latest example.
Nowhere in"Lila" do I find any references to society other than a society
of people. What Pirsig means by the social level are things like tribes,
cities, nations, Victorians, Indians, anthropology, status, celebrity,
constitutions, police, etc. He doesn't mean ants, baboons, wolves, lions,
whales, or elephants who are also social creatures. He certainly doesn't
mean that a human wearing a coat and shoes is a society.
IMHO, a synonym for the social level is cultural level. Pirsig didn't use
the word "cultural" because it's loaded with political overtones; he
deliberately used the more neutral word social. (He does use "culture" in
some references to the social level.)
Intellect is infamous for its ability to rationalize and "spin" any point
of view. Besides being a pointing tool, it's also a dividing/combining
tool. If you ask intellect, "How many things in a thing?" it will answer,
"As many as you want." If you ask it, "What is everything?" it will answer,
"the Godhead, the Cosmos, the Ultimate, the Void, the Absolute, the
Brahman, the Tao, the Quantum, etc. Between these two extremes it will
divide and combine in any and every way imaginable, even changing the
meaning of words and inventing new ones to suit its purposes.
There's nothing mysterious about the four levels. The inorganic refers to
earth, sky, fire and water; the biological to plants, bugs and animals; the
social to people, institutions and artifacts; the intellectual to language,
math and philosophy. We can divide and mediate the levels to a
fare-the-well, but even an 8-year old can recognize the levels for what
they are and tell the difference between them.
As Diana wrote, "A couple of days ago I was explaining the four levels to
someone who had never heard of the MoQ before. She picked up the gist of
the levels in about ten minutes. As Pirsig says, there's nothing very
original about the four levels."
How true. The original version was animal, vegetable or mineral--a popular
radio show in my youth. Once given the category, the 4-person panel had 2O
questions to identify the subject's "secret," whether an occupation, book
or unusual feat. The panel rarely failed, usually getting the answer in 15
questions or less. Pirsig merely combined animal and vegetable and added
social and intellectual to suit his thesis which is not about levels so
much as about the omnipotence of values, no matter how you divide the
world.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST