From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 20:50:26 BST
Hi Johnny, Platt, Bo, Rick, all,
Platt said:
>> In the MOQ there are no animal, vegetable or mineral "social patterns."
>> Pirsig makes this clear in Lila's Child, Note 49:
>>
>> "'Societies' is used figuratively here as a more colorful word meaning
>> 'groups.' If I had known it would be taken literally as evidence that
>> cells belong in the social level I would not have used it. Maybe in a
>> future edition it can be struck out. One can also call ants and bees
>> "social" insects, but for purposes of precision in the MOQ social
>> patterns should be defined as HUMAN and subjective." (emphasis added)
Johnny said:
> OK. It's just that he doesn't want us to mix the ant social level in with
> the human social level. He's worried that we will think ants and "cells
> belong in the social level", so he arrives at the solution of just saying
> "for purposes of precision, in the MOQ social patterns should be defined as
> HUMAN and subjective." I agree that ants and bees do not belong in the
> HUMAN social level, but to say that dogs and chimps have no social patterns
> is almost as silly as saying that they do not have brains and do not think.
>
Steve:
I'd just like to interject with my understanding of the social level which
Bo finds so distasteful.
Johnny may be thinking of social patterns as the same as groups which is
exactly the misconception that Pirsig was clearing up. More than one person
is required for the emergence of a social pattern, but if there is no
unconscious copying of behavior, there is no social pattern formation.
Insects form groups, but an ant's behavior is not influenced by other ant's
behavior in the way humans influence one another. Everything they do is
genetically hardwired or rather in participation in the biological patterns
that result from that wiring and interaction with their environment. There
is no ant culture that is passed down from generation to generation that
influences behavior. There are only ant genes to do that.
There is no celebrity effect by which one ant recognizes the undefined
quality in another's behavior and then copies that other ant. Their little
brains aren't set up for that.
Whether dogs or apes are capable of learning is this social way and passing
on a culture is an interesting question. I don't rule it out based on
Pirsig's quote because I don't see him as speaking ex cathedra on this
matter since he is presumably not an expert in zoology. I suspect the
biological requirements for developing social patterns depends in part on
"the mammalian brain" which includes a capacity for emotions which I'm sure
that dog's have.
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 20:49:33 BST