[MD] Social level for humans only

[Krimel]

Krimel said:
Odd, it seems arrogant to me to assume that much of anything about us is
radically different than what we see in other species. We are a product of
natural selection and the same rules apply to us as to every other species.
Comparing our social manifestations to that of other species, looking at how
they arise from similar conditions and serve similar functions seems, what
the word I am looking for... natural. On the other hand assuming that we are
unique seems to me, what's that other word... supernatural.

dmb says:
The line between the social and biological is as supernatural and as the
line between biological and inorganic. 

[Krimel]
When you start with the assumption that consciousness or some form animism
is ever-present in nature; then yeah, the supernatural is everywhere. It is
like Wilbur insisting that "spirit" precedes the big bang or that the
universe is a figment of the imagination of some Hindu God.

[dmb]
To say human society is no different than an ant colony or a pack of wolves
is to reduce one level of reality to the simpler one from which it emerged.
Before you jump to conclusions, this is not to say that there are no
similarities or that we can't learn anything from them. I'm just saying that
explaining social behavior in terms of its biological antecedents distorts
the social behavior in question.

[Krimel]
No one is saying that; anymore than anyone is saying that western culture is
no different from eastern culture. The issue is whether or not those
difference are sufficient to claim there is no similarity or that such
similarity as we find is insignificant. 

I don't think one can understand human social behavior without reference to
its biological antecedents; without appealing to magic and superstition.

[dmb]
It would be like explaining biological reproduction in the terms of physics
or chemistry. Physics can illuminate biology but the fact is they play by
different rules. 

[Krimel]
What do you think the Human Genome project was if not an attempt to
understand reproduction in terms of chemistry? 

It is exceedingly peculiar I think to claim out one side of your mouth that
all things are "one" or that all things are interconnected and arising
dependently. Then to claim out of the other side of your mouth that
metaphysically, there are discrete levels squabbling against one another.

[dmb]
Obviously, Pirsig did not invent this distinction. The MOQ's levels add a
little something to distinctions that are otherwise already widely
recognized and employed, even in the way we distinguish between scientific
disciplines. Pirsig only adds to this by saying that the levels do not
simply grow from simple to complex but rather they actually oppose each
other in some way.

[Krimel]
The use of the standard college catalog as a metaphysical tool was a clever
heuristic. Turning that heuristic into some kind of rigid hierarchy over the
past 10 years on this forum has resulted in nothing but bickering over stamp
collecting.

The idea that the levels are "opposed" to each other is just a blatant
attempt to dogmatize a metaphor. It is not even possible for biology to
revolt against physics that is simply not how emergence works.
 
[dmb]
There is a qualitative difference, he says, such their differences can
actually create conflict. 

[Krimel]
Qualitative differences are almost always in the eye of the beholder. They
are relative and contextual and certainly do not form the basis for rigid
structures.

[dmb]
It's an evolutionary explanation of moral struggle. Among other things, it's
supposed to show what's underneath our notions of good and evil, progress
and decline, growth and decay. It's supposed to show how we can be amateur
philosophers and features of the food chain at the same time - and what the
differences are. 

[Krimel]
Does anyone here really think Pirsig succeeds in creating a philosophical
basis for morality or even for reliably making moral distinctions and
judgments? Kant, Mill, Rawls, and a bevy of moral and ethical philosophers
have failed but Pirsig succeeds? I think not. You don't solve the problem of
morality by setting up a system where everything works towards "betterness."
You don't solve the problem of good and evil by simply ignoring evil.

[dmb]
Plato was operating within the rules of physics and was a member of the food
chain. But if you say he was JUST a feature of the biosphere, you have
definitely left some important things out of your explanation. That's the
problem with reductionism. It reduces the object of inquiry to something
else and so effectively eliminates the subject matter in question.

[Krimel]
It's a two way street you know. If you claim Plato was JUST a spiritual
being unrelated to the biosphere all you have is superstition.

It's parts and wholes, bottom-up versus top-down, discrete versus continuous
and in every case things work both ways. That is the nature of all duality. 

I have never understood metaphysics to be an excuse for avoiding ideas.
Rather I thought the point of a metaphysics is to help use assimilate new
ideas. It ought to provide us with a simple conceptual structure, a set of
lens, a filter or Indra's net that minimizes the amount of effort we have to
put into reducing uncertainty in an uncertain universe. The aim of such a
conceptual system is to find the smallest set of concepts that allows us to
process the greatest number of percepts.

Seeking to justify a 21st century systems in terms of 19th century concepts
seems utterly doomed from my perspective. Don't get me wrong the 19th
century is a great place to look for historical antecedent but for Christ
sake at some point it is time to move on; unless of course, what you are
looking for in the 19th century is an excuse to stay there.