[MD] Step two

Sat Aug 9 16:24:33 PDT 2014

Greetings.

Well I got the restrictive casts off and now my fingers are free again to
rejoin the convo.

Yay!

And while I'm at it, thanks for the well-wishing and support.  It meant a
lot.

Now, as I understand Jan-Ander's topic, how does the evolutionary step from
mere-biology to biologically social patterning occur, in its most basic
form?

It seems to me that the most basic social unit is when sexual reproduction
occurs.  The most basic society there is, is the society of male and
female.  When sexual reproduction enters the picture, it makes possible the
transmission of a far greater array of experience and organisms that
require sex to reproduce are the very first social organisms, when
construing "society" by the broadest definition.  Confining the definition
of "society" to human society, as Pirsig does, is fine.  I can go along
with that altho it ignores a fascinating world of non-human co-operative
patterning.  The only quibble I'd have with it then is construing any
non-social humanity.  That seems impossible.  Humans, qua humanity can only
survive in social groups and there is absolutely no evidence of any
pre-social humans ever.

Thanks again and glad to be back.

John the healing

On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Jan,
>
> Splish, splash... taking a bath...
>
> If you are talking about the MOQ, then social patterns have nothing to
> do with groups of individuals. You seem to be equating the meaning of
> a society with the meaning of social quality patterns which will only
> lead to confusion.
>
> Social patterns cannot be seen. They exist in the mind, not in
> physical reality. No matter how closely you examine the man you will
> find nothing to lead you to believe that he is President of the United
> States. His is a title, not something anyone can see.
>
> Glad you read Big Sur... I am halfway into The Tropic of Cancer. I
> downloaded Sexus but haven't started it yet. Looking forward to it
> now.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan
>
> http://www.danglover.com
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Jan Anders Andersson
> <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
> > Hi all or am I the only one left in the tub?
> >
> > I’ve read Henry Millers ”Big Sur and the oranges…”p. ”But what I’m
> leading up to … what makes painting painting.” p 98
> >
> > I find Henrys book The Rose Crucifixion, Sexus , part III, ch 9, pages
> 283 - 296, more overwhelming and a nice example of the difference between
> the two levels. This is a part where he isn’t talking about himself so
> much. (according to step two, from the organic into the social level..)
> >
> > ”The world would only begin to get something of value from me the moment
> I stopped being a serious member of society and became - myself. The state,
> the nation, the united nations of the world, were nothing but one great
> aggregation of individuals who repeated the mistakes of their forefathers.”
> p 283
> >
> > Again
> >
> > Jan-Anders
> >
> > 7 aug 2014 x kl. 10:43 skrev Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com
> >:
> >
> >> Hi all again
> >>
> >> Its going to the end of the summer again.
> >>
> >> I have done some research and I have come to the conclusion that the
> beginning of step two is when two or more organical ”items" benefit from
> cooperation instead of striving for themselves. It could be by symbiosis,
> or organisms with identical DNA but with cells that have different roles,
> that are together evolutionary superior to individually organised systems.
> >>
> >> Transposed to human and animal organisations this means that groups of
> different members playing certain roles are making better results than
> individuals.
> >>
> >> Nice and short, yes?
> >>
> >> Jan-Anders
> >>
> >>
> >> 8 jul 2014 x kl. 19:49 Ant McWatt wrote <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>:
> >>
> >>> Cheers for that Jan.
> >>>
> >>> It's really heartening to read that someone somewhere has made careful
> and constructive use of the various MOQ texts and papers out there
> especially that 1999 paper that I co-wrote with Eric Priezkalns (which is
> rarely mentioned).  Strangely enough, I was just speaking to Eric recently
> (after about a gap of a couple of years).  He "officially" gave up
> philosophy a few years ago but I am encouraging to return to it even in an
> informal way.  It would be great if I could convince him to write another
> philosophy paper but We will see!
> >>>
> >>> http://robertpirsig.org/Evolution.htm
> >>>
> >>> Eric also has a blog which (thoough not related directly to the MOQ)
> has many interesting insights of his over the years.  This can be found
> here:
> >>>
> >>> http://halfthoughts.com
> >>>
> >>> Eric (also a mathematician) was probably the most gifted individual
> (intellectually) that I met at the Liverpool Philosphy Dept. and has
> recently retired in his mid forties!
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise, I better say that I completely re-wrote our 1999 paper as
> an addendum for my PhD so - especially as I only "nailed down the concepts
> of change and space-time in my own mind by the time the PhD was finalised
> in 2004 - it's probably better for the "average" MOQer to use that as this
> "Step Zero" that you and Arlo have been discussing recently!  The addendum
> can be downloaded for free at:
> >>>
> >>> http://robertpirsig.org/MOQTime.htm
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes, as ever,
> >>>
> >>> Ant
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Jan Anders stated July 7th 2014:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Arlo for this summary.
> >>>
> >>> I think its now time for discussing step two. The second step in the
> intellectual journey up the levels. Inability to understand the levels
> causes a lot of confusion here. We all know that the rules for
> participation in this forum is at least that you have read ZMM AND LILA.
> Reading, however but not surprisingly, does not guarantee an understanding
> of the same. (You see what you see and measure your mate with your own wit
> that is close to your own mind while his is at a distance.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The starting point of this discussion is ANTHONY MCWATT of Liverpool
> University, & ERIC PRIEZKALNS's excellent little essay called "Evolution,
> Time and order" (full name: The Role of Evolution, Time and Order in Robert
> Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality").
> >>>
> >>> Step number zero is the one about change. The first step into the
> inorganic existence was the very first change, which demarked the first
> occurence of time. I call i step zero as it comes from just nowhere, the
> mystic area of Q.
> >>>
> >>> "The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception itself
> as the ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is probably
> `change`. The second one may be `before and after`. From this sense of
> `before and after` emerge more complex concepts of time." (letter from
> ROBERT M. PIRSIG to Anthony McWatt, February 23rd, 1998)
> >>>
> >>> This was discussed here a while ago in a thread called "step one"
> which eventually concluded in some kind of common agreement that step one
> (from the inorganic into the organic level) was by the first succesful
> reproduction of an organism. Reproduction is the solution to the problem
> with complicated inorganic patterns depletion by age. Reproduction saves
> the orginal pattern before it loses its art. Inorganic patterns does not
> have to reproduce themselves as they are so stable "constructions" already.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Now, what about step two? In Lila we can read that it is something
> about how the reproduction change from direct selfcopying into the superior
> schem called sexual reproduction which results in different copies that fit
> together in a social organisation that is superior to pure biological
> patterns. The social patterns are controlling and using the biological
> patterns, are dependant of biological patterns but social patterns are
> using biological structures for its own purpose.
> >>>
> >>> "the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis to permit
> sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a Dynamic advance. So
> is the collective organization of cells into metazoan societies called
> plants and animals. So are sexual choice, symbiosis, death and
> regeneration, communality, communication, speculative thought, curiosity
> and art. Most of these, when viewed in a substance-centered evolutionary
> way are thought of as mere incidental properties of the molecular machine.
> But in a value-centered explanation of evolution they are close to the
> Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern of life forward to greater
> levels of versatility and freedom."
> >>>
> >>> (Quoted from LILA, Chapter 11)
> >>>
> >>> I think its very important to have a clear understanding of this.
> (Prepare for using the slow parts of your brain. When you get it, you're
> automatically qualified for a free trip to the Chronosynclastic
> Infundibulum by Prometheus-5. Look! No drugs! Dreams and fantasies only!)
> >>>
> >>> When we have done step two clear we can go on to the next step: step
> three. The understanding of the evolutionary step from the social level
> into the intellectual level.
> >>>
> 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
>

-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."