[MD] Step two

Jan Anders Andersson jananderses at telia.com
Sun Aug 10 04:43:45 PDT 2014 

Hello Dan, and all, welcome back into the boxing ring JC!

It’s all patterns anyway, but I am looking for the most basic pattern where more than one are using organic patterns for their own benefit, but still dependant on the inferior level. I don’t think it it as a sharp line, or edge, more like a dotted line, emerging into a clear border.

The sometime called organic level and sometimes called biological level is confusing here.


Jan-Anders


10 aug 2014 x kl. 08:17 Dan Mascola wrote<mascola.d at gmail.com>:

> 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*
> 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list