[MD] Social level for humans only

[David Thomas]

Hi Ian,

> I think we just have a definitional problem again when we use the word
> social (or cultural as Dan did and I often prefer) in different
> contexts .... clearly there are social animals and animals exhibit
> social behaviour, but this is not social in the sense of Pirsig's
> social (cultural) level.
> 
> Clearly the levels in the MoQ are from a human perspective - the
> cultural evolution of human understanding and (dare I say) wisdom or
> arete.

This is the whole problem in a nutshell me. RMP sets out to create a better
system and ends up with a hierarchy of four levels of increasing moral good
plus an even more moral dynamic wildcard that is integral to everything,
everything is dependant on, that is only partially, mystically, accessible.
On top of what is knowable is the human intellect with the moral right to
dominant everything else. As a practical matter how does this change things
much from this?

"And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ], and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth." Genesis 1:28

Except by replacing God with Quality(undefined).

I have no problem with the social level only for humans as long as that is
defined as when it split off from our evolutionary ancestors 2 million years
ago or so. But even with that it seems to me you still have the top down
dominance problem that for all practical purpose results in intellectual
taking over the role of objective and social denigrated to subjective.
Ranking or sorting all gets done within the system by the intellectual
level. Bottom two levels few problems. But move to the top two and I'm
afraid it's still going to be a fight to the death for ranking. I tiresomely
point again to RMP call on socialism and capitalism as an example.

How is this an improvement?

Dave