[MD] Social level for humans only

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

We are human beings; everything we perceive is colored by our
human-ness. Other animals perceive the world accordingly. In my
opinion, it is arrogant to assume our cultural mores extend to
non-humans, kind of like dressing up a dog. It might be good for
giggles but it makes no sense. Thast's why RMP suggests drawing a
boundary, imo.

Dan

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:37 AM,  <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi John C,
>
> On 15 Aug 2010 at 9:03, John Carl wrote:
>
> 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?"
>>
>
> [JC]
> 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.
>
> [P]
> The SOL interpretation has been accepted by Bo, Marsha, Mary and me. A diverse
> group. Does that make it valid? Hardly. Again, the number of those agreeing or
> disagreeing with a certain position is immaterial to its validity.
>
> [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)
>
>
> [JC]
> 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".
>
> [P]
> As has been illustrated here many times, second-guessing what Pirsig says about
> his own MOQ opens up a tangled web of endless argument. Maybe that's why it
> hasn't gained much traction beyond this small group. What do you think?
>
> [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. :-)
>
>
> [JC]
>  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.
>
> [P]
> Well, one's man's intellectual quality is another man's social go-along-to-get-
> along. And "objective truth'' is another arguable notion. I'm always reminded
> of Lincoln's observation that: "If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels
> swearing I was right would make no difference."
>
> I guess what is right or wrong about the MOQ will never be settled. We're all
> just doing the best interpretation we can.
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>