[MD] Social level for humans only

[plattholden at gmail.com]

John:

On 19 Aug 2010 at 8:49, John Carl wrote:

Platt:

> >John Prev:
> > Emotions are social responses.   Lizards and amoebas are biological, but
> > they emote not.
> >
>
> Bull yourself. What do you think activates lizards and amoebas, intellect?
>
>
John:  I choose to think in these terms -  there are three different mental
states (response to DQ) corresponding to the three upper levels of the MoQ.


Environmental reactionism - starting with the simplest forms of life,
amoebas and insects and reptiles

Intelligence - starting with mammals and corresponding to self-realization

Intellect - starting with SOM and corresponding to self-reflection.


> > [JC]
> >
> > Intellectual understand is DQ to a social pattern.  SQ is any stable,
> > long-lasting society or group.
> >
>
>
Platt:


> Say what?
>
>
Well, Islam, America, Christianity, the NFL - are all long-lasting social
patterns.  They were all creations of intellect and have persisted for a
while.  These are SQ expressions of the social level

[P]
I doubt if social patterns are creations of intellect. In describing the social 
pattern of the Giant, Pirsig wrote::

"When societies and cultures and cities are seen not as inventions of "man" but 
as higher organisms than biological man, the phenomena of war and genocide and 
all the other forms of human exploitation become more intelligible. "Mankind" 
has never been interested in getting itself killed. But the superorganism, the 
Giant, who is a pattern of values superimposed on top of biological human 
bodies, doesn't mind losing a few bodies to protect his greater interests." 
(Lila, 17) 

> >  > [P]
> > > SQ at the social level is the Giant. DQ is accessible at this level so
> > long
> > > as
> > > SOL, with its absence of the concept of DQ, doesn't to try guide the
> > Giant.
> > >
> >
> > [JC]
> >
> > Poppycock (a polite term for "bullshit that doesn't get me bonked by Lu)
> >
> > SOL says intellect is SOM, RMP says upper levels are DQ to lower.  Your
> > statement, Platt, makes no sense.
> >
>
>
Platt:


> Check what Pirsig says about the Giant and intellectually guided societies.

John:

All societies are intellectually created and guided, to an extent.  Some are
more open to DQ than others, is all. I believe what Pirsig meant by
"intellectually guided"  was a matter of degree, or an extreme along a
continuum.

[P]
It seems to me that Pirsig's position is that the less a society is 
intellectually guided (central economic planning) the more DQ is influential 
because individuals are more free to respond to its creative force.

> > > [P}
> > > DQ is the purview of all who pursue the Conceptually Unknown in order
> "to
> > > bring something out of that unknown into a static form that would be of
> > > value
> > > to everyone." (SODV)  I agree such individuals are heroes.
> > >
> > >
> > [jc]
> >
> >  Well... I guess I'll have to take your word for it Platt, You are older
> > than me.  But I never seen such a thing in all MY experience.
> >
>
> Sorry about that.
>
>
> > [jc]
> > I mean for starters, wtf is "Conceptually Unknown" and if you know it,
> > doesn't that obviate it's label?
> >
> > If you knew what it was you wouldn't call it unknown would you?
>

 In other words, it's an impossibility to pursue what is "conceptually
unknown".  Absolute Idealists and Pragmatists postulate that the self is a
constructive process.

[P]
I liken pursuing the conceptually unknown to exploration of new territory, like 
landing on the moon, or more down to earth, visiting a new city for the first 
time. Pirsig argues in favor of the conceptuall unknown this way:

 "I would guess that the Conceptually Unknown is an unacceptable category in 
physics because it is intellectually meaningless and physics is only concerned 
with what is intellectually meaningful. That also might be why Bohr never 
mentioned it. However I think that this avoidance of The Conceptually Unknown 
should be revised. It is like saying that the number zero is unacceptable to 
mathematics because there's nothing there. Mathematics has done very well with 
the number "zero" despite that fact. The Conceptually Unknown, it seems to me 
is a workable intellectual category for the description of nature and it ought 
to be worked more. As a starting axiom I would say, "Things which are 
intellectually meaningless can nevertheless have value." I don't know of an 
artist who would disagree with that. Certainly not Rene Magritte." (SODV)

Thanks for the conversation.

Platt