[MD] Intellectual and Social

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings Steve,
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> > For the following, I do like Steve's formulation mostly.  I think he's
>> > missing key pieces tho. He leaves out the social/emotional matrix, for
>> one:
>> >
>> > mechanistic cause and effect occur at the inorganic
>> > Actions occur at the biological,
>> > Emotions occur at the social
>> > Thoughts occur at the intellectual.
>>
>>
>> Accoring to Pirsig, the MOQ puts emotions at the biological level:
>> "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality and not the same
>> thing as quality. There are many cases, particularly in economic activity
>> where values occur without any emotion." Note 141, Lila's Child
>>
>John:
> Yeah, I've encountered this.  I beg to differ with Pirsig in one or two
> small, inconsequential areas and this is one of them.  I get permission by
> reading his explanation of his demarcation  confining the third level to
> human society, which is basically "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
>
> You really think economic activity occurs without emotion?  Ha.  Without
> emotion, there wouldn't be economic activity.  Or put another way, I wonder
> if Bob is quite so glib since the collapse in investment values.

Dan:
I always thought economic activity had a foundation in value, not
emotion. Emotion may be a contributing factor in the decision to buy
or sell (as any good salesperson knows) but the economic act itself is
emotionless. It has to be. That's the whole idea behind the exchange
of goods and services for money.


>
>Steve:
> The feeling of fear, for example, can be a biological response to
>> biological threats that does not depend on any social patterns.

Dan:
Agree.

>>
>>John:
> Wrong again.  Lizards feel no fear, cows do.  For fear to occur, some sense
> of self must be in place.  A sense of self is created through infant nurture
> and the realization of the self/other dichotomy.  Thus any fear for this
> socially constructed self, is  social.  SOL is social, not intellectual.
>  SOM is intellectual, because it takes this SOL as fundamental to existence.

Dan:
I guess I'd have to wonder how you know that lizards feel no fear but
cows do. Lizards run when someone tries to catch them. Do you mean to
tell me they're just exercising? And cows? They're so stupid that they
just lay there when you tip them over. Look at amoebas. Amoebas move
away from acidic environments. Are they scared? I don't know. But just
because I move away from a hot stove doesn't mean I'm scared. Nor does
it even mean I exist as an individual self. I guess I fail to see your
point.

>
>Steve:
>> I see emotions as the "carbon atom" of the biological level that
>> provides the versatility to allow for the emergence of social
>> patterns.

Dan:
Yes. That seems to shine some light on things.

>>
>>John:
> Emotions are the drivers of social patterns, not biological.  This is a
> point that Pirsig missed because emotions have a biological expression,
> pounding heart, hormonal flushing, etc. which is a case of mistaking effect
> for cause.

Dan:
I think he says celebrity drives social patterns. I think you're
barking up a different tree.

>John:
> Biology is driven by a non-emotional force known as "natural selection".
>  Society, whether it be a wolf pack, a pod of whales or a city, are driven
> by the emotional needs to protect and nurture the self and others in
> complicated interactions.

Dan:
Debatable. I'd say we convey emotions in a social manner but we feel
emotions biologically. And I don't know what being a wolf or a whale
entails. I am human.

>John:
> Sorry for infecting the pristine MoQ with heresy, but there ya go.  Argue me
> out of my adaptation if you can.

Dan:
Seems like you got an attitude brewing there, John. Doctor Dan
suggests sitting back, lighting up a fatty, and getting back to me
when you're feeling more mellow.

>John:
> A few points to consider.  If all we were here for was to parrot Pirsig,
> there would be no need for discussing the MoQ.  Of he'd be an active member
> of the list, handing down his edicts from on high.  Some may long for that
> kind of "Just tell me what to think" but imho, it'd be boring for the true
> studentry AND the teacher.

Dan:
Parroting Pirsig? Are you serious? Have you read any of the archives?

>John:
> Further, a classic Zen teaching is that a student who matches his teacher's
> achievement, diminishes his teacher's virtue by half.  In order for the
> teacher's virtue to be  positive, the student must strive to surpass the
> teacher.  I advise more thinking along these lines.

Dan:
It seems to me that a teacher ought to point out the path a student
walks. In any endeavor, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Each
learns from the other... the student how to teach and the teacher how
to learn. It is the natural order of things that they change places.

Dan