[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[John Carl]

Dave T and Platt,

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:19 AM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David T,
>
> On 14 Aug 2010 at 17:41, David Thomas wrote:
>
> Hi Platt,
>
> > and not to other criticisms of Pirsig's positions, like the social level
> > not being limited to humans.
>
> Since I'm the purveyor of this travesty I would like to know, "Have you
> honestly looked at and thought deeply about the issues I've raised?"
>

I believe, the issue of extending the social level to animals has also been
accepted by Krimel, Bo, Arlo and me.  A diverse group!  My specialty is
cutting off social patterns at the Mammalian animals, because it makes sense
that the self/group realization is created by infant nurture.


Platt:


>  Also, Pirsig indicated very little value in extending the
> social level to include animals. "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." (LS, No. 49)
>
>
John:

I believe there is an important distinction you're missing here Platt.
Pirsig's wording was that he didn't SEE much value in extending the social
level.  This implies that there might be some, but he just didn't get it.  I
think this illustrates the difference between Quality itself, and the MOQ as
a framework for discussing Quality.

Furthermore, for purposes of precision, we should certainly not throw out
all the evidence of obvious social patterning we share in common with wolf
packs, horse herds, and other animals which bond and learn polite behavior
with others of their species.  And for purposes of precision, perhaps our
best teacher of what these social patterns consist, is not the one of our
species who was so appallingly bad at socialization that he got tossed into
a mental institution and had to be forced into accepting human social rules
with a sort of "cattle prod" approach.  Even as you point out in your
response to Dave below, we all have our own individual blind spots in
life.

Some members of the pack have sharper social sense, some sharper
intellectual sense.

It's through an evolving communal process that we are "saved".



Dave:


> But as you say Platt, I could be wrong. But so could Bo. He's just not
> willing to consider that possibility.
>
>
Platt:

 Yes, and so could Pirsig. So could anybody. I think that's a given, but it
> doesn't hurt to admit it once in awhile. None of us has a monopoly on "the
> truth" much less a "one right way to think." On that I'm sure we would all
> agree, not that that alone would make it valid. :-)
>


 Well, if we all agree, then I think that makes an assertion as "valid" as
it's likely to get.

 But it only works if we care more about intellectual quality than social.
That means, I care about objective truth, more than I care about social
acceptance or getting to be herd-leader.

Take care,

John