[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Platt to Case]
Pirsig does NOT include ants, bees and chimps in the social level (society).
"One can also call ants and bees "social" insects, but for purposes of
precision in the MOQ social patterns should be defined as human and subjective.
 Unlike cells and bees and ants they cannot be detected with an objective
scientific instrument.  For example there is no objective scientific instrument
that can distinguish between a king and commoner, because the difference is
social."

[Arlo]
And I think here Pirsig makes a serious mistatement. He's saying that we should
not include ants within the social level because they are objective and
detactable by scientific instruments, but this is a serious MOQ mistake.

Human bodies, too, are objective and detectable by scientific instruments. On
the biological level, both ant-bodies and human-bodies can be placed without
problem. But BOTH participate in social behavior that is undetectable by
scientific instruments. For a more emphasized example, consider primates. What
scientific instrument can detect the difference between the "alpha male" and a
"commoner"? An "ant colony" can accomplish more than any one "ant" could alone.
Rereading the Giant segment, it is without contradiction or error that one
could substitute "ant" and "colony" for "man" and "city". Indeed, if we don't,
what type of pattern is an "ant colony"? A "biological pattern"? It's a social
pattern, as is a "city", abeit quite less sophisticated.

nd therein (the sophistication of our static analogues) lies the "Us, Wonderous
Us" aspect some need so desperately to cling to. "Dynamic Quality", simply
"it's better here", is experienced by atoms, cells, cats and people. The
difference is the analogues they are able to create in response.

Arlo