[MD] Step two

Dan Mascola mascola.d at gmail.com
Sat Aug 9 23:17:25 PDT 2014 

Expanding on the previous remarks...the most basic social unit can't be
"where sexual reproduction occurs" because it must be prefaced by the
process of choosing a mate.  In Lila, Pirsig buckets this process in
biological. But is this process of choosing a mate not influenced by
obvious societal status?

Fashion, which is certainly a characteristic of society, certainly
influences who we find attractive or not.

Perhaps the line isn't black/white, but a gray area where one dissolves
into the other.

Dan

On Sunday, August 10, 2014, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>
> > >:
> > >
> > >> 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
> <javascript:;>>:
> > >>
> > >>> 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."
> 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
>


-- 
*Dan*

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list