[MD] Social level for humans only

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Andre

> Andre:
> I don't want to be cocky Magnus but can you define yourself? Just try to
> tell the person at the other end of the table who asks:'Now tell me Mr.
> Magnus, who are you?' Can you fully exhaust a description of the being
> that is you in words, or gestures or rhythm or scientific parlance?
>
> Sounds like you do want a crisp and clear definition.

No, I can't define myself like that, but I want a way better definition 
than a substance based description can tell me, and to me, it seems your 
view doesn't provide anything much better than that.

So I can't describe me fully, but I *can* describe what different types 
of stuff I'm made of, or rather, what different kinds of experiences I 
can respond to. According to you, it seems I can only experience 
inorganic and biological events. But that's just not true. I can 
experience social and intellectual events as well.

> Magnus:
> 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.
>
> Andre:
> With all due respect it seems you have a very narrow idea about
> biological patterns of value.

Why's that? Do you think:

"Since Magnus thinks ants are social, then his biological level must 
consist of animals that are smaller than ants."

Then you're way off. As I said, everything that can experience 
biological quality events are biological. And that ranges (in size) from 
the constituents of a cell up to whales. I don't consider that narrow.

And then you will probably say something like:

"But then you lose the meaning of the biological level"

No, I don't. It just doesn't have anything to do with size.

> Magnus:
> Don't you think Pirsig took the reductionist approach in Lila, or in ZMM?
>
> Andre:
> I have always understood that ZMM employed an inductive and LILA a
> deductive method.

In ZMM, he explains the difference between inductive and deductive, but 
you complained about my *re*ductionist approach. As I explained above, 
my reductionist approach is not about size, or how to divide substance 
or animals into smaller and smaller parts, but what *types* of stuff 
those substances and animals are made of.

> Magnus:
>
> 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?
>
> Andre:
> The how question is adequately answered in both books I think. Pirsig
> spends some considerable time in LILA explaining how he arrived at the
> levels. From experience I have learned that if I do not 'empty my
> teacup' upon another reading I will end up having learned nothing new.
> And religion has little to do with it.

I didn't say religion, I said "sit like religious fanatics", meaning 
that the only way to approach the MoQ is to sit and interpret every word 
of the books over and over again and refrain from any new thoughts that 
is not explicitly stated in the books.

> Magnus:
> I don't start with inventing a meaning, and THEN start dividing the
> world to comply with the meaning.
>
> Andre:
> Pirsig started with Quality (ZMM) and fitted the MOQ (LILA) to 'comply'
> with Quality.

Well, to start with Quality, which he defined as all of reality, isn't 
very original. Of course we must always start with all of reality if we 
want to divide it and describe it. And what is the meaning of reality? 
Not sure that's a "meaningful" question.

> Magnus:
> 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*.
>
> Andre:
> This is your reading.

And I provided just one of the contradictions that doesn't work in my 
last post, but I see you conveniently failed to include that (the 1, 2, 
3 chain of reasoning). May I ask why?

Can you explain it?

Or don't you think it's relevant? In which case why?

> Magnus:
> 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.
>
> Andre:
> Thing is that the MOQ is a finger pointing to... and, fortunately the
> finger is not pointing to a program designed by you...it would not be
> able to respond to DQ...no program can or does.

You're absolutely right. It wouldn't be able to respond to DQ, which is 
why I think computers are so great when discussing the levels.

But we're not discussing DQ, we're discussing the static levels. And 
I've been very clear with avoiding DQ influence when I think about the 
levels. That's one of the reasons I think about computers and small, 
static, animals when I reason about the levels.

> Magnus:
> 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?
>
> Andre:
> Well, not sure about the last bit but I do honestly not know this
> Magnus. I do not know enough about the workings of the brain. What I can
> say is that consciousness is a function,an event. To put it in James'
> terms a 'knowing' which is reproduced from moment to moment with the aid
> (I suppose) of sq, (the analogues already in place) as such. The
> non-dualism event of knower and known precedes this event. Where exactly
> this is taking place (or stored for that matter) I do not know, but my
> hunch is that it is stored at all sq 'levels' which, at the moment the
> event is taking place are 'suspended'. I am only guessing but it sounds
> right for me.
>
> You Magnus appear to me to keep the division between 'in here' and 'out
> there' (the old SOM) which imho leads to some strange conclusions.

I've heard that too many times to count from Bo. But it just means you 
don't understand my view.

I don't deny the quality event, the non-dualistic event of knower and 
known. I also don't deny that the first division of reality is the DQ/SQ 
division. And since it's *not* the S/O division, such accusations just 
doesn't get to me.

You said "What I can say is that consciousness is a function,an event.", 
and that consciousness is the S in SOM. But I don't go around accusing 
you of being trapped in SOM, because I know that you at least realize 
that this consciousness is not a primary stuff of reality, it's 
something that can be described in terms of DQ/SQ and the levels. The 
fact that we can't do that right now is one of the reasons I still 
discuss the MoQ here. One of these days we will nail that too and I want 
to be here when that happens. I just don't think it will happen if we 
keep the faulty definitions of the levels from Lila.

> Magnus:
> To me, it only reinforces my view that intellectual patterns are stored
> using the language of his brain.
>
> Andre:
> This is an example of what I mean. Language is a social pattern of value
> and used also for intellectual purposes. Does the brain HAVE its own
> language?

The language comes from the social network of neural signals throughout 
the body that are used to tell different parts of the body/society what 
to do. As the number of nerves grow, they tend to cross eachother's 
paths more and more, eventually forming a knot. That knot is what grows 
into a brain which can use the language of the nerves for its own 
purposes, i.e. intellectual patterns.

> 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.
>
> Andre:
> You are beginning to sound like Bodvar.

Yeah? Well, we're both scandinavians. As long as I stay miles away from 
SOL, I won't hold it against you.

> Magnus:
> 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.
>
> Andre:
> A plastic toy? I am not only playing with inorganic patterns Magnus.

Funny, not. Do I have to repeat it?

I said that your MoQ, which you claim can explain our reality much 
better than SOM, is just a toy because it doesn't explain our reality at 
all, it just explains our human viewpoint of it. And as such, why would 
anyone vaguely interested in a reality where humans is* not* the centre 
of the universe, bother with it?

> And you want to find the 'real deal'? Sounds like a
> socio-political-economic conspiracy plot you are trying to unravel. Now
> THAT I think is plastic.

The difference is that it's not hard to point at the evidence in my 
case. You have some questions to answer about that above, remember?

	Magnus