[MD] Social level for humans only

[Ian Glendinning]

Interesting Dave ...

For you "it's the whole problem"
For me "it's the whole value"

You ask "how is that an improvement ?"
I say "where's the problem ?"

I think we just have complementary cup-half-full / cup-half-empty
perspectives ;-)

One substantive point. It wouldn't be the first time I've made the
case that whilst the physical, organic and cultural
(socio-intellectual) levels are related hierarchically, the
distinction between social and intellectual may be clear (and it is),
but is much less clear that this distinction is hierarchical .... yet
it is the freedom in the intellectual that maintains the dynamics of
the whole socio-intellectual. It may be hard to draw as simple levels
in a 2D diagram .... but that doesn't make it wrong.

It's a multi-dimensional problem ... and part of it is confusing
progress of evolution over time as progress in any particular
(directed) direction. The only way is up, but "up" is many different
directions at the same time. Things should be as simple as possible,
but not more so. (Einstein) etc ...

This is like rolling the clock back 7 or 8 years for me. My starting
point with MoQ, and the reason I still see value in discussing the
social and intellectual relationships. Our futures depend on
understanding them.

Ian

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:32 PM, David Thomas
<combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> 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
>