Hi,
First post to the MoQ_discuss, so let me introduce myself. My name is
Denis Poisson, from Paris, France. Hope I can help with this problem,
here.
Ian Warburton wrote:
>
> Greetings,
(...)
> chpt 24 Lila -
>
> "The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that
> you can talk crime to death doesn't work. Intellectual patterns cannot
> directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control
> biological patterns, "
>
> Now this has got me confused.
>
> Let us say that I need to tie my shoelace up. The idea of the knot required
> to tie my laces is surely an intellectual pattern. So I bend down and using
> my fingers (biology) tie the laces (non - biological). O.K, so I've gone
> down through the levels but where is the social level?
> It seems that I've by-passed an entire level of reality and according to my
> interpretation of Pirsig this isn't possible. So either I am missing
> something or else the theory is not as neat as it is supposed to be.
True, there is a problem here that in my opinion comes from the fact
that Pirsig hardly scratched the surface of the social/intellectual
levels in 'Lila'. Maggie Hettinger (from the LilaSquad) has got
something to say on this matter (see her webpage). It goes like this :
[Maggie]
Q-social patterns are formed through imitation and retained through
habit. (McPartlin, 1998)
Q-social interactions involve awareness of pre-determined rank to
determine which social pattern is to be followed. No thought is
involved. This is automatic.
Human q-social patterns are hard to see. One reason is because many
q-social patterns imitate intellectual events that have occurred in the
past. Nevertheless, once intellectual decisions are repeated and become
automatic, they are no longer intellectual patterns. They are actually
q-social. (They also become invisible to the conscious self, which is
the part of the human entity that discusses metaphysics. )
[Denis]
The part I find most interesting, is that once an intellectual pattern
is learned it becomes automatic, and therefore ingrained into the social
level. I mean, when I lace my shoes I harly think about it : I can have
a conversation at the same time, while I can't write this post and talk
to some other person (really talk, not just "hm, hm, yes..."). No
thoughts about how I should handle the laces, in fact if I thought about
it it would probably confuse me. This goes nicely with the concept of
memetics, that where discussed earlier last month.
The technique of shoelacing (or just tying knots) is much older than
thought I believe. One day, someone, by happenstance or in a moment of
pure Quality-awareness, found the trick and taught it to his/her fellow
clanmates (my guess is, it was a woman fumbling with an ombilic cord :)
), who then got it by *imitating*. No thoughts involved. Anyway, it
seems more probable than a cave man thinking about three-dimensionnal
space, drawing a plan for a knot and then trying it, no ?
I mean sure, now the intellectual level has consumed the social and we
teach knots with drawings and talk, but when it comes to pratice, I
don't think many people get it right the first time. You've got to show
it to the kid, and he'll only get it right after he's done it a dozen
time or so. By imitation.
I'm
> sure there's an answer to this because my example is hardly an obscure
> phenomenon.
>
> This business of communication between the levels is made allot less clear
> with the continuation of the above quote....
>
> " & the instrument of conversation between society and biology is not
> words. The instrument of conversation between society and biology has always
> been a policeman or soldier and his gun."
>
> I don't use a policeman or a soldier to tie my shoelace.
I really hope so, man.
>
> Furthermore, the idea that it is force and not words which manipulate
> someone's behaviour seems to contradict everyday experience. I've read books
> on personal conduct, understood the words and sometimes decided to alter my
> behaviour in their light. In doing so, I didn't need to beat myself over the
> head with the book in order to comply. Taking into account that, in such a
> case, my actions were, at least, partly a response to social patterns of
> value, words were indeed the instrument of conversation between society and
> biology.
So you've changed your social patterns of behaviour, which then control
your biological behaviour, by intellectual means. How does it contradict
the MoQ ? Have you tried to teach yourself not to shit, piss, fart (sure
you do it quietly, but you still do it, no ?).
[ex-cursus] Excuse me for the crude words, I don't mean to be offensive,
but as Pirsig said : that's just your intellectual distaste of the
biological level.
[resuming post]
Would you succeed if you tried ? Sure, you could refrain for a time
(generally for social reasons, and after a lengthy period of social
conditioning called education), but you can't alter your biological
behaviour as durably as your social one. So, no contradiction within the
MoQ (for the moment, of course : there's no such thing as a perfect
metaphysic).
Going to bed now (and there's really nothing I can do against it).
Denis
PS: Thanks Maggie, your page has opened some new vistas of thought for
me, hope I can explore them at length later.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST