[MD] Social level for humans only

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Andre

On 2010-08-19 12:39, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Andre:
> Hi Magnus and All, I am not sure if the social level is clearly defined
> in LILA. Anthony, in his PhD, refers to the SODV paper where Pirsig
> suggests that social quality patterns (hence the level)are the 'patterns
> of culture that the anthropologist and sociologist study'.(SODV,p14)
>
> Anthony goes on to clarify that 'social patterns...refer only to
> behaviour that is learnt through imitation (such as rituals and social
> custom) rather than 'hard-wired' genetic behaviour ( as, for instance,
> observed in ant colonies),(p81).
>
> Therefore is seems that Pirsig restricts the social to human behaviour.
> That is, social behaviour is learnt and biological behaviour is, from
> this social perspective, if you like, learned to be recognized,
> controlled and channeled into socially approved ways and means of
> expression.(thanks dmb for the Freudian perspective and your
> encouragement).

Right, it is not clearly defined. Only by loose analogies and examples. 
But as soon as you try to generalize those analogies and examples into 
anything that looks like a definition, like dmb did yesterday, then lots 
of other societies fits in as well.

And I completely disagree that it refers only to learnt behaviour. On 
the contrary, to be able to learn something implies the capacity to 
react to intellectual patterns and is a much more dynamic process than 
hard-wired genetic behaviour. Anthony has mistaken the int-soc border 
with the soc-bio border. It is the social value that makes ants carry 
all that food and other stuff to the hill, if each ant was ruled by its 
biological values, he would run off and care only for himself. I think 
everyone realize that, but you don't dare to face the consequences for 
the social level. But I promise, it only gets better, way better.

> Magnus:
> However, what I tried to do was to find that definition by making
> simpler and simpler societies and then see what that specific trait was
> that puts a society in a morally higher level than biology.
>
> Andre:
> I am not sure if it is helpful to use a 'reductionist' approach in the
> MOQ to 'explain' or to reach a
> 'formal definition' of a level other than those which have been provided
> by Pirsig himself (which is what you appear to be looking for). And even
> then Pirsig suggests 'cutting off points' to retain a meaningful context
> about which discussion can take place.

Don't you think Pirsig took the reductionist approach in Lila, or in 
ZMM? How else would he have reached the levels, and the DQ/SQ division 
in the first place? How else are we to investigate it further? Are we to 
just sit like religious fanatics and read and re-read the books over and 
over again?

And about "cutting off points to retain a meaningful context", what? In 
my world, I investigate first how the world works, what it consists of 
etc. THEN I might find some meaning behind what I found.

I don't start with inventing a meaning, and THEN start dividing the 
world to comply with the meaning.

The division of the world has to *work*. If it doesn't, change it. And 
as it is described in Lila, it simply *does not work*. If I were to make 
a program that simulated the world using the divisions described in 
Lila, the program would crash because of the built-in inconsistencies. 
It's as simple as that.

> Also, mention has been made by Dan and Arlo in earlier posts that some
> social patterns are biological but not all biological patterns are
> social.(hope I got this right, off the top of me head).

That's just a very straight-forward consequence of the level dependency. 
Nothing special about that.

> Magnus:
> But then, how is it possible that a human being can
> store all those intellectual patterns inside its brain? Because even
> Pirsig have said that for example the MoQ,*is* an intellectual pattern.
> So, how is it possible that a person can have the MoQ in its brain if he
> doesn't support intellectual patterns?
>
> Andre:
> This is a little bit beyond me Magnus. I have no idea what you are
> referring to. Intellectual patterns 'inside its brain'...the MOQ in its
> brain??.

Where do you think you store the information you read in a paper, or the 
MoQ that you have read in Lila? In your behind?

1. The MoQ is an intellectual pattern, right? Even Pirsig has said that 
when confronted with one of Bo's ideas.

2. You, me, Horse and most others here on MD can remember large parts of 
the MoQ in our heads. We don't go and open the book every time we want 
to check something.

3. 2. Implies that you, me, Horse and most others on MD are capable of 
supporting intellectual patterns.

Was that so hard?

> Long ago I watched a documentary about the search for Einstein's brain.
> It was found in the fridge of some scientist. No matter how hard we
> looked into it...there was no trace of the magic formulae. It was even
> cut open but alas...many disappointments...nothing special about the
> brain (normal size, normal weight, etc).

It's the same example Pirsig has in Lila about the novel in the 
computer. How much you measure voltage levels and currents in the 
hardware of the computer, no novel will ever be found.

But that doesn't prove anything, because what we can measure in our 
brains or in a computer is only inorganic patterns. But intellectual 
patterns are stored using the internal language of the device storing 
the information. 1s and 0s in the case of the computer, and we simply 
don't know in the case of the brain.

I don't know how I was supposed to react to that example. How do you 
react? Roll your eyes and "realize" that Einstein must have stored all 
his info in a safe? Or perhaps he did put it in his ass after all?

To me, it only reinforces my view that intellectual patterns are stored 
using the language of his brain. The language of his brain may be 
slightly different from others, but since he's dead, the language, and 
with it, also the contents are gone.

> Magnus:
> These are the impossible questions that we have to deal with.
>
> Andre:
> I wish you the best of luck finding the answers Magnus.

Don't you worry about me. I have already solved them 12 years ago. I'm a 
bit worried about the rest here though, who still doesn't even realize 
there *is* a problem. Hence my complaints about ostrich poses.

> Magnus:
> Also, a society of sand grains? Just the example shows that he hasn't
> really thought about a good definition of social value, nor did he think
> about the level dependency.
>
> Andre:
> I think Pirsig has thought of a very workeable 'definition' of social
> value.

Workable? But that's just it. It doesn't work!

> Magnus:
> What is "this" in this context. What should be clear?
>
> Andre:
> That there are 'cutting-off points' to retain clarity of meaning.

Ok. I've already visited the meaning, see above.

> Magnus:
> If you find crisp and clear answers to those, I'm all ears.
>
> Andre:
> I am afraid that the DQ/sq will never give you these Magnus. And even if
> you are able to extract a few of them, they are only provisional.

And here's the plastic moon again I mentioned in my last post, 
"provisional". You're only playing with a plastic toy. I'm trying to 
find the real deal. I have no idea why you bother with toys, I wouldn't.

	Magnus