[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi Horse,

This is getting long, but it is probably near an impasse.

We obviously disagree on some pretty fundamentals of MOQ.  You state
that according to the dictates of the MOQ, such and such...and that I
am MOQ incorrect.  I am not sure what I am to do with this, so I will
gloss over it and try not to get annoyed.  I am using MOQ to place
Quality above Truth.  In that sense I am following the dictates of MOQ
as far as I am concerned.  If there is a list of commandments for the
MOQ then I would like to see them.  I would probably also like to
change them (oh sacrilege!) based on what some are proposing in this
forum.  We can continue to go in circles, but I think that I provide a
truer interpretation of MOQ (if I may use the T word).  At least it is
higher in Quality.  Your view seems to be an extension of what
Phaedrus was fighting against.  All my opinion of course.  More below,
and yes, this paragraph was a bit provocative.

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> Hi Mark
>

> But here's the problem. You make a sweeping (and per MoQ incorrect)
> statement that a static social pattern should _never_
> dominate a dynamic biological pattern, I give you a counter example and you
> then start trying to re-define what is biological, what is social etc.

[Mark]
How is this MOQ incorrect?  I am of the opinion, that a social level
CAN NEVER dominate the biological level.  It is IMPOSSIBLE.
>
[SNIP]

> [Horse]
> Rape and murder are defined at the social and/or intellectual level and
> refer to specific acts of a biological nature. Just because animals don't
> have concepts of rape and murder when they have sex and kill doesn't mean
> that certain acts of sex and killing by humans are not rape or murder. I did
> not mention pre-disposition as you seem to be implying. And whatever you
> mean by reality does not preclude specific violent biological acts which are
> defined as such.

[Mark]
Rape and murder are social or intellectual constructs.  They are only
controlling themselves.  I don't see how you jump across the
consciousness of the different levels.  Do you know what a dog thinks?
 You are humanizing the levels below.  This is projection which does
not work.
>
>>> [Horse]
>>> But acts of rape and murder do. Laws against rape and murder are designed
>>> to deter acts not suppress concepts.
>>
>> [Mark before]
>> No they do not.
>
> [Horse]
> Then please tell me what it is that laws against rape and murder are
> designed to deter and/or punish.

[Mark]
Rape and Murder laws are meant to streamline the cohesion of society.
They are intellectual concepts meant to support other intellectual
concepts.  They work on themselves, not the biological level.  That is
a whole 'nother level.

>[Horse]
> Rape and murder are socially designated instances of biological acts of sex
> and killing. Sex and killing are biological acts and where these acts occur
> and how they are performed gives rise to the production of laws to deter
> and/or punish in the form of rape and murder laws. Rape and murder are
> instances of biological actions given certain conditions. To say that acts
> of rape and murder don't occur at the biological level, when this is exactly
> where they are defined to occur is nit-picking at best. So social level laws
> and definitions are controlling biological level instances of designated
> definitions of specific biological acts. And I could probably say it in a
> number of other ways, all of which are counter to your initial statement.

[Mark]
Nit-picking?  What I am saying is that you are presenting a Truth
version of reality, I am presenting a Quality version.  Perhaps this
is nit-picking since we all have to eat dinner in the end.  It is just
a metaphysical premise created by the intellect.  As such it has
nothing to do with the biological level.  I could also say it in a
number of ways.  How about, the social levels cannot control the
biological level.  How does that work for you?
>
> [Horse]
> Rape and murder constructions or definitions are part of the social level.
> What they enclose and are meant to deter are biological acts.

[Mark]
No they don't.  Like I said we can agree to disagree on this one.

>> [Mark before]
>> Well, that is twisting logic completely.  No, the laws against such things
>> are for a better life.  I think you would agree with this.
>
> [Horse]
> No logic twisting here - just using your words to illustrate your error.
> This is the problem when you try and re-define what is social and what is
> biological. You end up with logical inconsistencies as suggested.

[Mark]
Hmmm... I suppose I could say the same thing for you.  If the social
level is controlling the biological level, how does the social level
arise?  Doesn't it take some biology?  Are you saying that the house
somehow controls the bricks?  How does this happen?  Like I said to
Arlo, are you saying that the equations of physics control the
movements of the planets?  I am not trying to redefine anything, I am
a biologist.  You are projecting the intellectual onto the biological,
not me.
>
> [Horse]
> The whole point of my initial statement was that rape and murder, as
> biological instances of socially defined acts, goes against your statement
> that social patterns should never dominate biological patterns. Clearly your
> statement is wrong.

[Mark]
The whole point of my rejection of this statement is that all of what
you are stating above lies in the social or intellectual realm, not
the biological.  I understand you do not agree with this, but that
doesn't make my statement wrong.  In fact I believe my statement is of
higher Quality.
>
[Horse]>
> Not quite sure what you mean by simple evolution. Evolution occurs in
> different ways at different levels. Evolution as a concept (which can also
> evolve) refers to different instances in different contexts. But that's
> another subject.

[Mark]
Yes, another subject.  Been there done that even with the likes of
Krimel (god bless him).  Like I have said, I know Evolution in biology
inside and out.
>
[Mark before]
>>  Show me where murder is a biological pattern.
>
[Horse]
> Murder is a definition of a particular biological act of killing which
> distinguishes it from other terms which may or may not justify that act.
> There is no hyperbole involved here or emotional manipulation any more than
> there is when the concept of evolution is used to refer to the idea of
> change. To say that murder only exists at the social level is as inaccurate
> as to say that evolution only occurs at the intellectual level because
> evolution is a concept. That we don't have laws against evolution is neither
> here nor there. To say that I am using hyperbole because I don't agree with
> your initial statement is disingenuous at best.

[Mark]
The act of murder is defined at the intellectual level.  It is wrong
to claim that it is a biological act.  Murder does not exist at the
biological level.  What you say about the evolution only existing at
the intellectual level is quite correct.  Where else does it exist?
We created it.  This does not diminish it, in fact it makes it more
wondrous.  It is an intellectual projection, like making
constellations out of the stars.  Does a big bear really live up
there?  And, back at you, I do not agree with your initial attack on
my initial statement.  I think that is obvious.
>
>> [Mark]
>> Static social patterns grow out of the biological level.  The biological
>> level is about survival.  The social level is about the creation of groups
>> of people.
>
[Horse]
> This is not the only thing that the social level is about because if this
> were the case then any group of animals or other biological entities is a
> social pattern and this is counter to what the MoQ describes as social
> patterns of value and the social level. At a particular point in time humans
> were not significantly different to other animals, so at which point can a
> group of people be described as part of a social level or social level
> patterns being part of a group and what is it that distinguishes this group
> from any other group of animals. You are being far too simplistic here. A
> social level, as per MoQ, is much more complex than just a group of people.

[Mark]
Here you go again with what the MOQ describes.  If you are referring
to Lila, then go back to ZMM which details the beginning of MOQ, it
ends sitting on the floor.  Humans are still not significantly
different to animals unless you think 1-2% difference in DNA is
significant, but that is an aside and not relevant.  I am fine with
the notion that a social level is more complicated than a group of
people, but that is where it starts.
>
[Horse]
>> For the biological level to survive, the social level creates static
>> patterns and laws.  It defines things such as rape and murder.  It is not
>> the other way around.  The social
>> cannot dictate to the biological level, it is a product of it.
>
> And what is it that these definitions of rape and murder refer to? They
> refer to biological behaviour and their definition and the enactment of laws
> against them. So the rules of the social level are designed to constrain
> certain types of biological behaviours or acts. Social patterns are not
> meant to affect the means by which the biological level operates but it can
> and does regulate the behaviours by which these means are achieved. Sex and
> killing as a means to survival is one part of biological behaviour but where
> those acts are not for the purpose of survival they can and are (and should
> be in many cases) regulated by social patterns - i.e.laws.

[Mark]
No, these definitions are something that are made up by the social
level.  They are not the biological level.  We are talking past each
other.  I try to give examples to show where I am coming from.  This
is not a dialectic to discover the Truth.  It is a perspective that is
different between you and me.  You say from above, I say from below.
I am fine with leaving it at that.
>
>
>> [Mark]
>> Hope this makes sense.  But if you want to keep insinuating that I am for
>> rape and murder, then I do not see any reason to continue this.
>
[Horse]
> Of course I don't think that. I was just trying to illustrate that what you
> are saying can be logically extended in such a way.
[Mark]
Only in a twisted Western mind  ;-).

[Horse]
The problem here is that
> your original statement manages to distort a particular aspect of Pirsigs
> MoQ in such a way that some take exception to it - myself included. It's not
> that I'm against extending and maybe correcting some parts of the source of
> the MoQ where it's necessary, but that in some cases, where you start with a
> motorbike you end up with a unicycle. Sure, you can still get from A to B
> but what's the point? That's how I see it and I think how a number of other
> folk on the list see it as well. Valid extension is fine - corruption is not

[Mark]
I believe your logic would be to start with a motorcycle and end with
a unicycle.  That is the more complex is dominated by the more simple.
 I would see it the other way around, that the unicycle becomes the
motorcycle to use your example.  There is no distortion here.  I
didn't know that there was a codified MOQ.  Does this come from the
writings of Pirsig?  Are we just rehashing words?  We go from the
complex to the simple in these levels.  The control is from the bottom
up.
>
>> This is about levels and their interrelation.  Perhaps you should use
>> another example which is less emotional.  How about seat belt laws. Here we
>> are dictating that the biological desire for freedom should be constrained
>> in a car.  I do not see the social aspect of this.  And I don't want to get
>> into jails and such.
>
> No offence intended Mark but I think this example is fairly trivial in terms
> of the inter-relation of levels. I also have no problem with seat belt laws
> or motorcycle helmet laws. I think they're common sense. You get in your
> car, put your seat-belt on and take it off when you get to the end of your
> journey. What's the problem?

[Mark]
No offense taken, it was meant to be trivial.  When does the law
intrude on common sense?  Who are we threatening by not wearing
seat-belts?  This was a law created by insurance agencies.  There are
many so called laws like this one.  But, this is for another day.  I
don't see any reason to pursue this one.
>
[Horse]
> Also what's the problem with an example that involves emotion? I'll make
> sure I keep out the hyperbole and won't accuse you of supporting something
> that you obviously don't. But why not take an example that is more
> generalised than specific instances of a particular act. Let's look at what
> those acts are part of - i.e. violent behaviour.
> Is it right for social patterns of value, such as laws, to dominate
> biological patterns of value which involve violence.

[Mark]
The problem is that these discussions often reduce into irrational
emotional arguments such as; "So, you believe murder is good then?"
Take all these silly political arguments for example.  That is my only
problem.  I have no problem trying to stay logical about the whole
thing.  We just have to prevent certain people from getting
involved...
>
All the best,

Mark
>
"She thought he was a man, but he was a muffin."
>
> 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
>