LS Re: The four levels


Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:59:02 +0100


Hi Platt and the Squad!

Platt Holden wrote:
>
> Magnus wrote:
>
> > > >> If you really mean this, we're really starting to understand each
> other.
> > > >> A human with a warm coat and a good pair of shoes is a society (a
> > > >> composition of organic patterns) that can better withstand cold
> > > >> weather than a human without them. Therefore, the coat and the
> > > >> shoes (and the human) are organic patterns to that society.
>
> Magnus has always insisted that the social level can be applied to any
> group of elements. The statement above is the latest example.
>
> Nowhere in"Lila" do I find any references to society other than a society
> of people. What Pirsig means by the social level are things like tribes,
> cities, nations, Victorians, Indians, anthropology, status, celebrity,
> constitutions, police, etc. He doesn't mean ants, baboons, wolves, lions,
> whales, or elephants who are also social creatures. He certainly doesn't
> mean that a human wearing a coat and shoes is a society.

I haven't got Lila here at work but I think he mentions "society of cells"
once, maybe I've dreamt it but that's not the point. These ideas I have are
not just something that popped up in my head which I use to bug you with.
They are solutions to a few problems I see with the MoQ as most (including
me) perceive it from Lila.

Some of the problems are:

1. I still think, despite Bo's arguments, that my individual intellectual
   patterns of value are superimposed upon *my* body, not our society.
   My intellectual patterns will still exist if the world goes under and
   I'm the only one left. They will on the other hand disappear if *my*
   body disappears. The problem here is that intellectual patterns must
   be superimposed upon a society, and I see no other solution than to
   make bodies into societies of organs.

2. Most people who read Lila equals the biological level with life. And
   then defines life as something that is able to reproduce itself. In
   that case, societies and ideas are also life and therefore biological.
   I say, No. And I believe Pirsig says no, Lila states that biological
   reproduction was the most dynamic process ever invented, and later
   when sexual reproduction was invented, that was an even greater
   dynamic success. Note *Dynamic*, the ability to change, static levels
   don't want to change, so reproduction can never be a part of any static
   level.

   Note also that in SODV, Pirsig describes this level as: "senses of touch,
   sight hearing, smell and taste", no life or reproduction here.

3. My robot society example. I think most agreed that the society of robots
   was in fact social patterns of value. The problem here is, what organic
   patterns was the society built upon?

If you acknowledge some or all of these as problems and come up with
other solutions, please let me know. I will discuss them with an open mind.

> As Diana wrote, "A couple of days ago I was explaining the four levels to
> someone who had never heard of the MoQ before. She picked up the gist of
> the levels in about ten minutes. As Pirsig says, there's nothing very
> original about the four levels."

Great, you can also explain the gist of Einstein's relativity in ten
minutes. That doesn't mean you can use it constructively. Don't get me
wrong here, I do think it's great that it is easily accessible to most
people. But don't be fooled into thinking that everyone who knows MoQ
will be able to get the Nobel prize just by implementing it on SOM-
problems.

        Magnus

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:04 CEST