[MD] Social level for humans only

[John Carl]

Dan,

I agree with your assesment of RMP "suggests" drawing the boundary there.  I
think that's the heart of the matter there.  He doesn't suggest that Quality
is definable, but he does suggest some aspects of the MoQ.  To my thinking,
that means there is room for debate, even amongst the orthodox acolyte.

Whatever that looks like.

Human to animal interactions are fraught with the cultural arrogance and
blindess you point out, but I'd say that the study of animal interactions
themselves, observing their patterns and behaviors apart from human
interference, reveals many commonalities of what I'd term shared social
patterns.

John

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> 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
>